Happy Easter
I promised a while back to discuss The Passion of the Christ. I thought it was arguably the best film of 2004, though it was woefully ignored at the Oscars for forces beyond the actual film itself. Today is NOT the best day to post about it, of course...Good Friday is. But I missed that, so you get my thoughts on Easter.
I've only seen the film once, pulled to a showing the day after it was released. I love movies. I have my favorite genres and themes, but great movies come from everywhere, and some movies simply HAVE to be seen. I don't regularly attend church. I find a convergence between philosophy and spirituality, and that's where I let my mind wander. I consider myself just barely on the dividing line between Christian and agnostic, interested in the intent and message moreso than the concept of being saved. It was argued by many that The Passion was intended for converts only. It does not discuss the life of Jesus, his virgin birth, his Apostles, or anything else outside of the events of the Passion itself. The title is an accurate depiction of the film. But I think the film does have some value for the atheist. But it does need the viewer to know the story at least.
There is not a defined narrative. I considered it experiential, like Black Hawk Down or the opening of Saving Private Ryan. It goes for a simple "you are there" approach to historical events. It assumes you know about the life of Jesus, his purpose, and the Biblical background of the most important event in Christiandom. Thanks to some Sunday school, I knew a little bit. I did not feel a strong connection as a Christian, but I did as a human. The notion of the Passion is that an innocent human suffers for his fellows, to spare them, to save them. That theme has endured since well before Christianity, and it permeates all great storytelling. Gibson's camera is unflinching, and he simply demonstrates a horrific, barbaric act...meaningful to me because it was done, not just to Jesus (though he suffers greatly, moreso most than most who are crucified), but to countless people, guilty and innocent alike. So, in effect, Jesus does represent all of us, children of God, whether you buy the mystical aspects or not. And that is why the film worked for me. In a nutshell.
The direction is beautiful. As the events on-screen get unbearable, Gibson allows a safety valve to pop, and a flashback occurs...to the Last Supper, to the speech at Galilee, to Jesus and his mother (who acts as a sort of surrogate for his Father as well - the most spiritual of relationships -- parent to child). These respites are necessary for the audience. The scourging and crucifixion, the demeaning and hostility is an mirror to the worst excesses of human nature.
The criticism is a charge of anti-semitism. To use another film analogy, The Passion is like the dark force tree on Dagobah in Empire Strikes Back. It only possesses what you take in with you. Anti-semitism is there subjectively, if you look for it and interpret it. but the deeper message is far beyond such petty failings. Gibson ensured it was his hand that nailed Jesus to the cross (that was his appearance), as a symbolic point that the Jews (if you'll excuse my informality) are no more responsible than every other person. The entire point of the Christian faith demands all are guilty. Foolish religious leaders have used some biblical history to blame Jews for their own purposes, but it is immaterial to this story. The interpretation is there...but you have to make it. The director said it was not anti-semitic. Mel Gibson is many things, but he's not a liar. He's very direct and honest, and I believe him when he says the film is not anti-semitic. Beyond that, a culture war raged in America in 2004, with two polarizing films. This was the "red state" film, as designated by the media and bloggers. They were wrong, short-sighted, ignorant, and petty. But that's their interpretation...see the dark side cave analogy.
Why, two years later, am I talking about it. The film resonates. Jesus represents minorities, gays, the poor, the down-trodden, the marginalized. The power of the film is the strength and conviction of it's subject. He is not just willing to die to save those he loves. He is willing to have God turn his back, and suffer to the limits of what humans can suffer. I can ignore the spirituality of it, the biblical connections, and understand the purity of that.
Another note, the film itself is beautiful to watch. Caleb Deschanel was the cinematographer, and the film looks like a Carvaggio painting. Keep in mind...this director also won an Oscar once.
That said, it's an atypical film...very demanding of the audience. There is precious little context in the film...you must provide it. And it is excruciating to watch (which is why I've only seen it once). If you've stayed away for political reasons...maybe give it a shot. Just remember Yoda's message :)
And why do we celebrate Easter with jelly beans and chocolate bunnies?!?! What frigging sense does that make??
I've only seen the film once, pulled to a showing the day after it was released. I love movies. I have my favorite genres and themes, but great movies come from everywhere, and some movies simply HAVE to be seen. I don't regularly attend church. I find a convergence between philosophy and spirituality, and that's where I let my mind wander. I consider myself just barely on the dividing line between Christian and agnostic, interested in the intent and message moreso than the concept of being saved. It was argued by many that The Passion was intended for converts only. It does not discuss the life of Jesus, his virgin birth, his Apostles, or anything else outside of the events of the Passion itself. The title is an accurate depiction of the film. But I think the film does have some value for the atheist. But it does need the viewer to know the story at least.
There is not a defined narrative. I considered it experiential, like Black Hawk Down or the opening of Saving Private Ryan. It goes for a simple "you are there" approach to historical events. It assumes you know about the life of Jesus, his purpose, and the Biblical background of the most important event in Christiandom. Thanks to some Sunday school, I knew a little bit. I did not feel a strong connection as a Christian, but I did as a human. The notion of the Passion is that an innocent human suffers for his fellows, to spare them, to save them. That theme has endured since well before Christianity, and it permeates all great storytelling. Gibson's camera is unflinching, and he simply demonstrates a horrific, barbaric act...meaningful to me because it was done, not just to Jesus (though he suffers greatly, moreso most than most who are crucified), but to countless people, guilty and innocent alike. So, in effect, Jesus does represent all of us, children of God, whether you buy the mystical aspects or not. And that is why the film worked for me. In a nutshell.
The direction is beautiful. As the events on-screen get unbearable, Gibson allows a safety valve to pop, and a flashback occurs...to the Last Supper, to the speech at Galilee, to Jesus and his mother (who acts as a sort of surrogate for his Father as well - the most spiritual of relationships -- parent to child). These respites are necessary for the audience. The scourging and crucifixion, the demeaning and hostility is an mirror to the worst excesses of human nature.
The criticism is a charge of anti-semitism. To use another film analogy, The Passion is like the dark force tree on Dagobah in Empire Strikes Back. It only possesses what you take in with you. Anti-semitism is there subjectively, if you look for it and interpret it. but the deeper message is far beyond such petty failings. Gibson ensured it was his hand that nailed Jesus to the cross (that was his appearance), as a symbolic point that the Jews (if you'll excuse my informality) are no more responsible than every other person. The entire point of the Christian faith demands all are guilty. Foolish religious leaders have used some biblical history to blame Jews for their own purposes, but it is immaterial to this story. The interpretation is there...but you have to make it. The director said it was not anti-semitic. Mel Gibson is many things, but he's not a liar. He's very direct and honest, and I believe him when he says the film is not anti-semitic. Beyond that, a culture war raged in America in 2004, with two polarizing films. This was the "red state" film, as designated by the media and bloggers. They were wrong, short-sighted, ignorant, and petty. But that's their interpretation...see the dark side cave analogy.
Why, two years later, am I talking about it. The film resonates. Jesus represents minorities, gays, the poor, the down-trodden, the marginalized. The power of the film is the strength and conviction of it's subject. He is not just willing to die to save those he loves. He is willing to have God turn his back, and suffer to the limits of what humans can suffer. I can ignore the spirituality of it, the biblical connections, and understand the purity of that.
Another note, the film itself is beautiful to watch. Caleb Deschanel was the cinematographer, and the film looks like a Carvaggio painting. Keep in mind...this director also won an Oscar once.
That said, it's an atypical film...very demanding of the audience. There is precious little context in the film...you must provide it. And it is excruciating to watch (which is why I've only seen it once). If you've stayed away for political reasons...maybe give it a shot. Just remember Yoda's message :)
And why do we celebrate Easter with jelly beans and chocolate bunnies?!?! What frigging sense does that make??
posted by Chuck | 9:32 AM
3 Comments:
Easter as a word is also thought to come from the name of the fertility goddess Ostara, known in Anglo-Saxon as Eostre. The spring equinox, near Easter on our calendar, is her holiday. I've even read of one myth in which she appears on the equinox as a beautiful maiden accompanied with the symbols of fertility and rebirth: a basket of eggs and a hare. Even the tradition hot cross bun may have a pagan root - we think of it as a symbol of Good Friday but, supposedly, the Greeks ate it in honor of Artemis, Goddess of the hunt (crossed horns) and the Saxons ate it for Eostre (either in reference to the cycles of the moon or oxen, traditionally slaughtered at the spring equinox).
I had actually assumed it involved melding with some rites of spring crap. Thanks to Marion Zimmer Bradley, I am somewhat aware of Christianity weaving it's little spell amongst existing beliefs. It's still rather interesting to see the pinnacle of the Christian faith (which is truly Good Friday and Easter Sunday) so duly noted.
It actually makes a lot of sense that a religion so focused on rebirth and eternal life would build its most holy days in spring and around pre-existing rebirth rituals. Interesting to note that the holiest of days in the Jewish calendar, Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah, are in the fall (late Sept, early Oct).
Post a Comment
<< Home