NOTES ON THE PASSION
Gibson's The Passion of the Christ opened on Wednesday at the Cumberland. I haven't had a chance to sit down and watch it from start to finish, but I've seen bits and pieces of it while at work.
Firstly, it really is quite violent. Nothing you wouldn't expect, just more extreme than you've probably imagined the Stations of the Cross. Some critics are calling it the most violent mainstream movie ever made (I think it was Roger Ebert who said something to that effect), but I think that seriously underestimates what else is out there.
Despite the high gore content, the film looks absolutely beautiful. I was surprised but not shocked to learn it was shot by Caleb Deschanel, and it may be a better looking film than even Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ. Regardless of the controversy, it's highly deserves an Academy Nomination for Cinematography. Deschanel, Zooey's father, by the way, is certainly one of the most gifted cinematographers working today, although he rarely seems to work on projects that push his talents far. Even if Gibson can't match Scorsese (or Pasolini) conceptually, he still gives Deschanel a great opportunity.
Despite my misgivings from the previews, Jim Caviezel is a great looking Christ. There's one scene as a flagellated Christ is carrying the Cross where Gibson cuts to a part of the sermon on the mount. Caviezel is shown in close-up with the sunlight flaring the lens behind him, and it's a startlingly beautiful image. Caviezel looks wise, and loving, and well, beautiful.
There's a genius to casting Monica Bellucci, probably the most desirable woman in film, as Mary Magdalen, but she doesn't belong. Bellucci's proving herself to be a real talent, and there's nothing wrong with her performance as she suffers watching Christ's tortures. But her face just doesn't seem to fit in. She looks too modern, or even too old--her sharp features and angular lips sometimes make her look more aged than the actress playing the other Mary, Jesus' mother. And from what I've seen, Gibson totally mutes her sexuality, even in the flashbacks where it might have been appropriate. There are no scenes of her tarted up, like Barbara Hershey's Mary in Scorsese's film, and I think that's a mistake, too. I mean, you go out and cast Monica Bellucci, and then do nothing to convey her sensuality? That sounds bad, but it's Mary Magdalen for Pete's sake. It's not that I just want to see more of Bellucci. I can buy Maxim magazine for that. If you weren't already familiar with the story, you'd never know she'd ever been a whore.
And I also objected to the fact that Jesus isn't naked on the cross. Gibson can show him having his flesh scourged to the bone, and yet a penis (or even some pubes) are out of the question? I found the fact that Scorsese had Dafoe naked quite moving to suggest the depth of his humiliation.
I know, you're shocked. No sex in a Christ movie?
As for Pilate and the Pharisees, it's understandable why people are a little nervous about how those scenes play themselves out. Dramatically speaking, this wise, just Pilate trying to undermine the whims of the vegenceful Pharisees is certainly compelling. I think it's clear what Gibson's saying, and I don't think it's anti-Semitic. Christ clearly represented a threat more to the Pharisees and the Temple than to the Roman, and I think he's suggesting how institutional religion of all stripes are often at odds with real spirituality. It's just a shame that in this case it comes with so much baggage, and is bound to stir up debate about the Jews' role in Christ's death.
Anyways, I'll write more when I've seen it finally. Nothing I've seen convinces me that it's a great film, but it's much more intriguing than I expected.
Speaking of great films, go and check out Touching the Void. More on that later.
