THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST - RECUT
March 23rd 2005
Mel Gibson has responded to comments during 2004 that The Passion of the Christ was too brutal and bloodthirsty for some audiences and many potential viewers decided that the reports of the visual violence influenced their decision not to see the film. He has recut the film so that it is now 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, the British Board of Censors which gave the film an 18+ rating in 2004 has given the recut version a 15+ certificate (whereas this was the classification given to the original version in Ireland).
The release and marketing of The Passion Recut was left until the end of Lent (in Britain, Good Friday) whereas Christian audiences would have considered going to see 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.
The comments offered on The Passion of the Christ in the SIGNIS statement of November 2003 on its biblical basis and its theology still pertain to the recut.
Reviewing The Passion Recut
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 this time. 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. Maya 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 in 2004 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 comments of 2004 in retrospect
What may be of interest, however, is a report on some information gathered by SIGNIS during 2004 on responses to the film from around the world. This includes comments on how the film was released, criticisms made at the time and reflections on the kinds of spirituality that favoured the film and that were hostile to the film.
Differing responses in different places
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 sub-titling everywhere.
Asia
The film was screened in many Asian countries. As might be expected, it was very popular in the Philippines, the Catholic country of Asia, a country with a Hispanic religious tradition which has followed the devotional aspects of Catholicism with great emotion, even passion. In some areas, there are vividly physical re-enactments of Christ’s passion. This audience has very little difficulty in responding straightforwardly to the strong presentation of Jesus’ suffering.
However, The Passion was successful in unexpected areas. It broke box-office records in Dubai where the population is 85% expatriate, many from the Philippines but also from Sri Lanka, India and Pakistan. Lebanon was another country where it drew large audiences.
In Hong Kong, where the Catholic Audiovisual Office, prepared the Chinese sub-titles, it was showing on 27 screens during Easter weekend, 2004. The distributors limited the screenings in Bangkok to six (with the Catholic office again preparing the sub-titles) but they were immediately booked out and so another four performances (with discussion following) were permitted.
The situation was different in neighbouring Malaysia where the religious and legal climate did not permit public screenings. Audiences watched the film on pirated copies – pirating is something of an industry in this part of the world.
Issues of anti-Semitism are not prevalent in most countries of Asia.
Africa
It is more difficult to get information about The Passion in Africa. While South Africa has American-like distribution and exhibition, especially in city complexes, other countries do not have such movie outlets and rely on cassettes and a growing popularity of DVD.
The Pacific
Australia, New Zealand and Fiji are part of worldwide cinema complex trends. The Passion had wide and multiplex release with reviews for and against, as exemplified by both viewpoints being published in Sydney’s Catholic Weekly. The film received strong public support from Cardinal Pell of Sydney. However, the debate about Mel Gibson’s anti-Semitism was strong, Jewish reviewers feeling that the film was indeed anti-Semitic. However, The Passion was number one at the Australian box-office for two weeks in succession, echoing the patterns of the American release.
Latin America
The film, as might be expected, was very popular in Latin America. It was very strong in Brazil with its population near to that of the United States. Once again, the Hispanic and Iberian religious traditions and sensibility mean that audiences are immediately ‘on the wavelength’ of this kind of film. The violent sequences do not seem out of place as they do in more reserved European cultures. Rather, audiences identify with the experiences of Jesus and his suffering. It was said in the 1970s that South America was the region where Zeffirelli’s Jesus of Nazareth was most popular. Many Church leaders were supportive of the film.
Europe
Europe was the region of the world where there was the greatest diversity in response to The Passion.
It was well received in Eastern European countries, especially Poland. Perhaps it was a heritage of religious persecution in the 20th century which meant that audiences were identifying more with the sufferings of Jesus.
Opinion differed in Western European countries. Italy, Spain and Portugal saw strong audiences. However, in France, there was a mood of hostility towards the film: American, religious, violent. In Germany and Benelux, the violence was considered far too much for its audiences and the film was disliked by critics and some religious leaders, although many popular audiences went to see it. It was more successful in Ireland and, despite generally hostile criticism in Britain, The Passion was top of the box office chart for two weeks. Release was spread out through Europe, earlier in Lent in Italy, capitalising on fervour, later in Lent in Britain where it caught religious interest as Holy Week approached. A sign of the differing sensibilities is the classification in Ireland for 15 and over whereas in Britain The Passion was restricted to 18 and over. The Passion Recut has received a 15 and over certificate.
Different Christian groups in Europe contributed to an appreciation of the film from a religious standpoint. A German Protestant group prepared a book of reviews reflecting the wide range of opinion. In England, a group prepared a booklet of questions and answers about the film and about the Gospels. It was distributed at many of the cinemas screening The Passion.
North America
Nobody expected The Passion of the Christ to have the box-office success that it did.
In the United States alone, it made almost $400,000,000 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 2004, it sold at least 9,000,000 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 thirty 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.
(In March 2005, I was invited to do a series of interviews on The Passion Recut for BBC regional radio (sitting in a London studio for two hours with 12 successive interviews every ten minutes). Only one of the interviewers raised the issue of anti-Semitism.)
One of the other features of the debate was the reviewing of Mel Gibson’s religious stances and those of his father, Hatton Gibson, and the implication that these pervaded the film: anti-Semitism, staunch conservatism, anti-Vaticanism. Britain’s Channel 4 screened an hour-long documentary on the Sunday night of the opening weekend. It discussed Gibson’s stances and showed scenes (rather alarming) of his father’s outspokenness (for example, referring to John Paul II as the Koran-quoting pope). While Gibson comes from this background and the documentary contains some of his snide remarks about the contemporary church, his film is quite mainstream.
Some religious leaders endorsed the film, especially for Lent. For instance, the bishop of Wilmington, Delaware, issued a pastoral letter for Lent on the religious meaning of movies, exploring the themes of The Passion and Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King and suggesting ways in which parishes and schools might discuss these films.
The reviews in the United States were very mixed. There are 170 listings for reviews from around the world in the IMDb file for external reviews of The Passion. Two very differing reviews, those of Roger Ebert from Chicago (thoughtfully in favour) and James Carroll of the Boston Globe (highly emotional and aggressive) illustrate the two poles. For many critics, the artistic commentary is important, the links with horror films, comparisons with Braveheart, censorship for violence; but it is usually not considered in the light of intrinsic links between theme and presentation. British critics were much more hostile to the film, generally disliking what they see as heart on sleeve emotionalism in many American films, whether it be sentimentality or violence: ‘foolish and shallow film’, ‘obscenely extended violence’, ‘no spirituality whatever’.
Perceptions
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?
The sight of blood has varying effects on different people. There are some robust sensibilities which are not so disturbed by it. Blood has been part of their history. There are other sensibilities which are more fastidious about the sight of blood. This seems to be the case in Western Europe where there has been a tradition for some decades to enforce tighter controls on depictions of violence (in contrast with a more liberal attitude towards the depiction of sexual behaviour). Mel Gibson’s career came into focus in this regard, his action shows, the Lethal Weapon series and others, as well as his depiction of the battles and death of William Wallace as Braveheart. He was considered as too bloodthirsty. Some reviewers referred to his ‘zealot’s rapture’ for the Passion and as indulging in sado-masochism.
This is what many saw: because they felt that the violence was over the top, it seems to have prevented them from seeing so much more that was in the film.
The caption at the opening of the film is a quotation from Isaiah 53, the suffering servant of Yahweh. The servant songs of the book of Isaiah are the peak of redemptive theology in the Jewish scriptures: the innocent servant who is prepared to be the innocent lamb led to the slaughter bearing the sins of others, vicarious suffering. Vicarious suffering has always been acknowledged and admired as complete self-sacrifice. The Jerusalem Bible translation includes the phrase to describe the impact of the suffering servant on those who witnessed his suffering: ‘they were appalled on seeing him’.
Appalled is the biblical word and that is what Gibson wanted in his audience. Jesus’ suffering and death is shocking. Perhaps too long an easy spirituality and sanitised art has prevented us from being appalled.
This highlights how the response to the film reflected the religious experience of the viewers.
What was surprising in 2004 was not only how many people who normally don’t go to see a film actually went to a cinema (and later bought the cassette or DVD) and were able to sit through the film, especially the older audiences and members of religious orders. They seem to have been appalled in the best sense. After years of contemplation of the sufferings of Jesus, using the decades of the Rosary, the Stations of the Cross and other devotions, they found that the film corresponded to their prayer. Focussing less on the idea of suffering (which is what theologians professionally have to do), they were attentive (in the way that Ignatius Loyola advocated in his Spiritual Exercises) to immersing themselves in the experience of Jesus. There was a meeting of what was on screen with experience that clicked.
This is very difficult to explain to someone who has not experienced it – although, if we were to speak about our favourite films and why they mean so much to us, the conversation would probably parallel the way these audiences spoke about watching The Passion.
Because of the rediscovery of a spirituality of the Resurrection in recent decades, many spiritual writers and spiritual directors have felt that many people have not developed this aspect of spirituality, that they are stuck in the Passion. There must always be the challenge of the Resurrection for spiritual growth, but it sounded during discussions in 2004 and seemed reflected in much religious writing that those who have had the benefit of a deeper education in biblical theology took a superior and sometimes intolerant stance over those who were less religiously sophisticated and who relied on a very personal faith, whatever its limitations. Some of the articles and comments sounded elitist – that this Passion spirituality was for the less spiritually developed. Some of the comments also sounded intolerant: that their more comprehensive spirituality was what people should follow, that they should not have a Passion of the Christ spirituality.
Listening to callers on phone-in radio, one realised that it was a wide range of people who were responding well to the film. One educator made the point that, with the emphasis on the gentle humanity of Jesus in recent decades to counterbalance a sometimes exclusive emphasis on his divinity, younger people were looking for a more transcendent Jesus and that Mel Gibson’s insight was to portray this transcendence in someone who was clearly both divine and human. This appreciation, according to popular hearsay, led some audiences to re-think their faith stance and some to ‘conversion’.
This was especially true in the more Evangelical church congregations who combined the film with their Good Friday ceremonies in both 2004 and, with their DVD copy, in 2005.
For some non-Christians – and I rely on a Bangladeshi Muslim friend who attested to this – the impact of the film was to help them realise for the first time the reality of what Jesus suffered. Critics referred to the visceral experience – and this is what made the impact on my friend. He had never realised the reality of the suffering of Jesus before.
Some of the religious writing on the film would repay re-reading and re-assessment.
For many who do not have Christian faith and, especially, those who have lost it or who resent it, the comments on the film were bitter. Once again, looking through user comments and reviews on the IMDb site, one finds outpourings of hatred of Christianity, of particular churches, especially of the Catholic church. It is a sobering reminder that the community that Jesus established has not lived up to what he taught and what he did.
Whether The Passion Recut will have the hoped for results at the box office with those who intimidated the first time round going to see it remains to be seen. However, watching it again a year after the controversy gave an opportunity to bypass the arguments and see the film more on its own terms.
