A while ago I recommended avoiding Quentin Tarantino movies. I didn't give a reason, but my general rule is that any movie with as much blood and gore as Kill Bill isn't worth defiling my conscience over. That being said, am I a hypocrite for personally wanting and encouraging others to see The Passion of the Christ, Mel Gibson's bloodiest film ever?
In a word, no.
I am continually amazed that anyone would call this an anti-semitic movie, given the following:
Gibson (reportedly) makes an appearance as one of the Romans who nails Jesus to the cross.
There are several questions that need to be addressed to show that this is not, in reality, an anti-semitic movie, for instance:
Who nailed Jesus to His cross?
The Romans, obviously, because they were in charge of crucifixions.
Who demanded His death?
The Jews, who received Jesus back after Pilate said he found no guilt in Him and demanded His crucifixion.
Who caused Him, ultimately, to go to the cross?
Everyone. That is the fundamental tenet of Christianity, that everyone is sinful enough, individually, to make God want to die for the individual's redemption.
So no, this is not an anti-semitic movie, because it indicts everyone by preaching the message of the Gospel: that Jesus is God and that He loved you, so He was willing to endure the pain (to use the most inadequate word) of death on a cross to save your sorry can from the same fate. Who else but God could have the strength to endure first the whipping, then the crucifixion? And for what other purpose would God willingly endure it, since He could have, at any time, spared Himself the trouble? It is clear that Gibson indicts everyone, since he, a Christian, appears in the movie as nailing his Lord to the cross. If this were an anti-semitic movie, he would have cast a known Jew in that role, not himself. If others complain about the portrayal of Jews as money-grubbing, they should bother to read the Gospels and ignore the stereotypes.
Jews play a prominent role in the movie because Gibson wanted to make it as real as possible. They played a prominent role back then, so they are portrayed in the same role now. Only a fool would presume to think that Jews then are the same now. Only a fool would think that only Jews were responsible, and in doing so, incorrectly absolve himself (or herself) of an accomplice's role in the murder of Jesus.
But why make it so violently bloody? Because we are desensitized to real violence by the constant rehearsal of pretended violence. We, as a society, do not understand the color of blood. We do not understand that if you beat a person repeatedly with a whip, their skin hangs off their body. We do not understand that wounds, if not treated, continue to bleed. We do not understand that pierced livers will bleed a person to death within minutes. We do not understand violence because it is repeatedly shown to no purpose in the media.
So what is the purpose in The Passion? Well, what was the purpose of Saving Private Ryan, another bloody movie I recommend to mature audiences? Its purpose was to show just how bloody, violent, and painful war really is (and was). The purpose of the Passion is to show just how painful, bloody, and demonic a crucifixion was. People bled to death on crosses. People were suffocated on crosses. People had their limbs dislocated on crosses. It was not the peaceful, romantic, serene situation portrayed on Renaissance paintings. Jesus did not stand straight with his arms extended, He hung while his hands and feet were split open by the nails. His arms were pulled from their shoulder sockets, His side ruptured, His heart burst (literally). He endured the most painful death possible, and The Passion displays that in all its human gore.
The purpose of the Passion is to twofold: one, to fill the viewer with a sense of guilt for causing such pain with their own personal sin, and two to drive the individual to feel love from Jesus, for willingly enduring such Hell on Earth. As for the repeated claim that the rest of the Jesus story would serve this purpose better but the movie does nothing to tell that part of the story, I have this to say. The definition of Jesus as Human has been repeated to such a degree that reiterating it would not serve any purpose in advancing the Gospel to the audience Gibson wants to address. The definition of Jesus as God (both willing and able to endure such humanly hellish punishment) is what Gibson seems to want to stress, and he does it well. Many are claiming the violence is exaggerated and inaccurate. I do not know for sure, but I would be willing to bet that it is inaccurate, but only because it is not violent enough.
I cannot discern a purpose in a movie which shows a hitwoman who seeks revenge as a heroine, but I can see a purpose in making a person feel guilt for their sin. That is why I recommend The Passion and not Kill Bill.
Add A New Comment
