It’s been widely reported that a man has his eye pecked out by a bird in Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” (2004), but careful watching of the DVD leads me to conclude those reports are incorrect. Several minutes after the sequence where the bird attacks, a close-up of the man’s face reveals no injury to his eye that I can see when I use the zoom feature on my DVD player. The close-up I’m referring to occurs just after the man’s legs are broken.
When I saw “The Passion” on the big screen in a packed multiplex theater, I perceived the man’s eye had been pecked out. But the experience of watching the movie on DVD at home is different. On the one hand, the film’s visceral impact is somewhat diminished; on the other, you have more of an opportunity to contemplate some of the details.
Based on viewing the DVD, here’s my impression of what happens during the bird attack: A raven pecks at the eye of a man being crucified, but the bird misses the eye, instead inflicting superficial wounds to the man’s face. But even assuming my perception of what happens here is correct, I’m still not at all sure I understand what the movie is trying to communicate: the bird attack is a sign to the dying man that he should repent or what?
And the bird attack is only one small example of how “The Passion” lends itself to multiple interpretations. People tend to see the movie in a way consistent with their own worldview, and thus the film means different things to different people. I think watching this movie at home on DVD provides a good way for individuals to make up their own minds about what it means to them. But I also hope that DVD viewers will try to see the film’s ambiguities and in what ways it might mean something different to someone else.
“The Passion of the Christ” seems to me to be a deeply felt personal statement by Mel Gibson, and he presents it in a provocative way that stirs up a number of controversial religious, psychological, social, and political issues. I am not comfortable with some of the choices Gibson made in creating his film, but I nevertheless find it well worth watching because it moves me and makes me think.
By definition, the word “Passion” in the film’s title refers to the sufferings of Jesus in the period following the Last Supper up to and including the Crucifixion. Much of the movie consists of excruciatingly graphic depictions of cruelty and the horrific physical injuries inflicted upon Jesus. Neither the cartoon violence of “Kill Bill Vol. 1” nor the war violence of “Saving Private Ryan” had as much impact on me as the savageness of “The Passion.” Nevertheless, I find the atrocities shown in Gibson’s film acceptable in the context of the story.
“The Passion of the Christ” is made with a very high level of craft, and in my opinion, Gibson occasionally manages touches of poetry. I would say the film’s greatest strength is that it creates a special world which feels authentic in movie terms. The locations and sets are convincing-looking, and the acting is generally naturalistic. Dialogue is in ancient languages, predominantly Aramaic. Some exchanges involving Romans are in Latin. On one occasion, Mary and Mary Magdalene seem to be reciting a couple of lines from the Passover Seder ritual in Hebrew.
I would not characterize the style of “The Passion” as realism. The colors often look unnatural—for example, the blue fog in the Garden of Olives (Gethsemane). Also, the use of obvious visual trickery like slow motion often calls our attention to the fact that we are watching a film. Furthermore, the electronically tweaked sound effects are extremely movie-like—for example, the resounding thud followed by a high-pitched shriek heard when Jesus crushes a snake’s head. And finally, there’s the music made by synthesizers and electronically altered human voices and often having a New Age flavor. But I think Gibson showed consummate skill in employing these devices to get 21st-century viewers to relate to his version of a story set in ancient times.
I was very impressed with the international cast assembled for “The Passion.” James Caviezel (Jesus) and Maia Morgenstern (Mary) had to convey their characters primarily through body language and facial expressions, and I would say their performances compare favorably with the best of those of the silent era around 1927. (You can perhaps better appreciate this on the DVD by turning off the subtitles.) Monica Bellucci (Mary Magdalene) was not given much to do, but she brings her earthy, sensual, feminine presence to the movie despite unglamorous costumes and makeup.
Continued on Next Page: "The Passion of the Christ" DVD Review
