meanings of The Passion of the Christ encyclopedia of The Passion of the Christ dictionary of The Passion of the Christ thesaurus on The Passion of the Christ books about The Passion of the Christ dreams about The Passion of the Christ
 The Passion of the Christ - Definition 

The Passion of the Christ promotional poster
Enlarge
The Passion of the Christ promotional poster

The Passion of the Christ (2004) is an independent film about the last twelve hours of the life of Jesus Christ. Mel Gibson financed and directed this film adaptation of the traditional Passion play, which is a Christian tradition during the season of Lent.

After months of controversy (primarily over alleged anti-Semitism) that led to record pre-release sales, the movie opened in the United States on February 25 (Ash Wednesday, the beginning of Lent), 2004. Taking $370m in the US, it became the highest-grossing R-rated film ever made, and the 9th highest all-time domestic gross.

Spoiler warning: Plot or ending details follow.
Contents
1 Making of

1.1 Cast and crew
1.2 Title changes
1.3 Promotion
1.4 Commercial success

2 Reactions

2.1 Columnists who had previewed the film
2.2 Public reaction
2.3 The Roman Catholic Church

3 Charges of anti-Semitism

3.1 Further social criticism

4 Details of the film

4.1 Details in the film not present in the New Testament
4.2 Some of the details in the film present in the Gospels

4.2.1 The flashbacks

5 Trivia
6 See also
7 References
8 External links

Making of

Mel Gibson played a crucial role in getting the film made, putting up his money to finance the project and directing and co-producing the film. He also co-wrote the screenplay. Gibson's religious beliefs, which inspired the film, are those of traditional Catholicism, which rejects most of the pastoral reforms set by the Second Vatican Council, commonly referred to as Vatican II. Gibson intended the movie to be faithful not to the New Testament alone, but rather to the New Testament as viewed through Catholic tradition, which accepts as valid a number of later sources.

Mel Gibson said:

"This is a movie about love, hope, faith, and forgiveness. He [Jesus] died for all mankind, suffered for all of us. It's time to get back to that basic message. The world has gone nuts. We could all use a little more love, faith, hope, and forgiveness." (from The Passion: Photography from the Movie "The Passion of the Christ, ISBN 0842373624)
"It was me that put him on the cross. It was my sins [who put him there]." Thus Gibson took a cameo role in the film: it is literally his hands that nail Jesus to the cross (seen in close-up only).

Many religious scholars [1] (http://seethepassion.com/article.php?id=27) state that the movie often departs from the New Testament in significant ways. It does so by incorporating material from The Mystical City of God by Mary of Agreda (a 17th century nun), and the writings of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich (a 19th century stigmatic). The latter is a controversial work, as it contains material that is considered by some to be violent and anti-Semitic. Some scenes are purely Gibson's poetic license.

In a departure from previous films depicting the life of Jesus, the dialogue is spoken entirely in Aramaic, Latin and Hebrew. After a lengthy internal debate, Gibson finally decided to include subtitles, except for one controversial line of crowd dialogue: "His blood be upon us" (see blood curse and Matthew 27:25) and a few bits of soldiers' dialogue.

The scourging and crucifixion sequences are exceptionally violent and graphic, earning the movie an R-rating in the United States. These scenes required Jim Caviezel, who portrays Jesus, to endure seven hours of makeup sessions daily. He even had his shoulder dislocated at one point during the filming of the scourging scene.

In many areas attention was paid to historical detail, such as the traditional clothing of the period and Jewish dietary customs. Gibson's film was produced in Italy, on locations that were selected to evoke Caravaggio's paintings.

Cast and crew

The film's principal cast and crew are as follows:

Cast:

Crew:

The film was shot at Rome's Cinecitta Studios and various locations in Italy, much of it in Matera, on a budget of US$25 million, financed entirely by Gibson.

Title changes

On October 17, 2003, Gibson's film production company announced the title of the film had been changed from The Passion to The Passion of Christ, because the title The Passion had already been trademarked by a different motion picture. This was then further amended to The Passion of the Christ. The following week Gibson announced a distribution arrangement had been reached with the independent Newmarket Films.

Promotion

Gibson departed considerably from the usual formula for marketing a film: a small TV campaign, no press junkets, etc. [2] (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/columns/grove_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000464071) The film was however heavily promoted by many church groups, both within their organisations and to the general public, in some cases giving away free tickets. The controversy in the media prior to release over the film's alleged anti-Semitism also helped raise its profile.

Some evangelical Christians considered the release of the movie to be a crucial moment for evangelism. Marta Poling-Goldenne, Minister for Outreach of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Grand Canyon Synod said in a 2004 email to pastors:

Seize this mission moment, friends! God is providing "the best outreach opportunity in the last 2,000 years" [sic] for us to witness about the gospel story to people for whom it may be very unfamiliar or unknown.

Also Rabbi Skobac from the antimissionary Jews for Judaism:

For the 75 million evangelical Christians the film is the greatest thing they've had in 2,000 years to convert people to their faith...

Some bloggers claim that the film's promotional campaign has used blog spam [3] (http://www.hiphopmusic.com/archives/000425.html) [4] (http://www.livejournal.com/users/dreadberry/125419.html?thread=443371#t443371), mainly on LiveJournal, in an attempt to increase the Google ranking of the film's web page. No one has identified the source of such spam, which could be the studio, Christians who see the film as a means of evangelism, or someone deliberately trying to cast the film in a bad light. [5] (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.03/google.html?pg=7) Bloggers who conclude this to be a commercial device by the studio are debating the morality of seeing the film and supporting spammers [6] (http://www.livejournal.com/users/reddragdiva/123719.html?thread=1415239#t1415239), and even to attempts at retaliation [7] (http://www.livejournal.com/users/zotz/125026.html).

Commercial success

After months of controversy that led to more pre-release sales than any film in history, the movie opened in the United States on February 25 (Ash Wednesday, the beginning of Lent), 2004. It earned $25 million per day in its first five days of release and in short order became the highest-grossing R-rated film ever made. As of September 29, The Passion of the Christ had the 9th highest all-time domestic gross ($370 million) [8] (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic.htm) and the 24th highest all-time worldwide gross ($609 million). [9] (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/).

On August 31, 2004 the movie was released on DVD and video tape. As with the original release in theaters, the release of the movie on DVD and VHS also proved to be very popular. Early reports indicated that over 2.4 million copies of the film were sold by middle of the day. The film was available on DVD with English and Spanish subtitles, and on VHS tape with English subtitles.

Reactions

Columnists who had previewed the film

In Newsweek, David Ansen wrote:

Caviezel gives an eloquent physical performance, but he has little opportunity to show the Messiah's spiritual charisma; this Jesus' most noteworthy trait is his ability to absorb pain. [10] (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4338528/)

Sharon Waxman of the New York Times wrote:

The film features agonizing passages as Jesus, played by Jim Caviezel, is mercilessly beaten by Jewish and then Roman guards, and jeered and hounded by a Jewish mob on his way to his Crucifixion. It is unclear how close this version is to Mr. Gibson's final film.
In this version, the Roman leader Pontius Pilate is depicted as being reluctant to harm Jesus, who Pilate's wife warns is holy. Largely to mollify a restive Jewish mob outside his window, Pilate agrees to a severe lashing and scourging of Jesus, but the crowd and the high priest demand more.
Pilate says in Latin: "Ecce homo"—"Behold the man"—displaying the broken and bleeding Jesus to the crowd. But the high priest insists, in Aramaic, "Crucify him." Pilate responds, "Isn't this enough?" The mob roars, "No," and only then does the Roman leader agree to the Crucifixion. [11] (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/04/movies/04PASS.html?ei=5062&en=09c548fda8db4d05&ex=1076475600&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=)

Peggy Noonan wrote:

It is the story of a Jew who was the Messiah; it is the story of his loving Jewish mother, his ardent Jewish followers, and his Jewish opponents, who saw him as heretical and dangerous. He is brutally put to death by non-Jewish Roman soldiers, who are portrayed as sadistic in a businesslike way, on the acquiescence of a tired, non-Jewish cynic who then sought to wash his hands of culpability. It is a film that leaves the viewer indicting not Jews and not Romans and not cynical bureaucrats. It leaves you indicting yourself: it leaves you wondering about what your part in that agonizing drama would have been back then, and what your part is today. [12] (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110004442)

Mark Savlov wrote in the Austin Chronicle:

...they (those involved with the film) render Jesus’ final hours in a wholly new light, albeit an almost unbearably horrific one. Historical accuracy was clearly the directorial watchword throughout, and this is where problems creep in: The Passion of the Christ trumps The Greatest Story Ever Told but comes perilously close to being The Greatest Snuff Film Ever Made. Knowing the incendiary passions surrounding the film and its subject, I do not say that lightly. This film is ultraviolent in the extreme – beyond the extreme, even – and Gibson, in his own passion for unflinching realism, almost short-circuits his production through sheer gory bravado. [13] (http://www.austinchronicle.com/gbase/Calendar/Film?Film=oid%3A197423)

Public reaction

On December 7, 2003, The Passion of the Christ had its first public screening in Austin, Texas at the annual 24-hour movie marathon "Butt-Numb-a-Thon 5", sponsored by Harry Knowles and his website Ain't It Cool News. Gibson was in attendance and followed the screening—which reportedly drew a five-minute standing ovation—with a 90-minute Q&A session. None of the attendees who have written about the event believe the film is anti-Semitic, with some taking the view that its critics are promoting "agendas".

The movie took the top spot in box office takings in its first weekend, taking US $83.8m from Friday to Sunday (and US $125.2m from Wednesday to Sunday), the seventh highest weekend takings in US cinema history. The following weekend, the film grossed another US $53.2m, pushing the 12-day total to over US $213.8m in the U.S. and Canada. This performance has stunned Hollywood, where Gibson attempted to attract distributors for the film to no avail. After its domestic close date in July 2004, Passion was the ninth-highest U.S. box office gross of all time; as of October 2004, it ranked as the 24th-highest global gross of all time.

Several criminals went to the police to admit their crimes after seeing the movie, many of them claiming the film had some influence over this decision. [14] (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=583&e=3&u=/nm/20040326/od_nm/crime_christ_dc)

No anti-Semitic incidents, at home or abroad, have been directly linked to the movie, and based on the ADL's own research, there has not been an increase in anti-Semitic incidents overall in the months following the movie's release. Independent research by the Institute for Jewish and Community Research [15] (http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/archives/004587.php) found that those who viewed The Passion were three times less likely to blame today's Jewish people and institutions after seeing the movie.

The Roman Catholic Church

The Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) gave full approval for the faithful to view the movie to "further realize and contemplate on the love and mercy of Christ". Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Rosales lead the clergy with other bishops and expressed their desire for the Church to appreciate the value the movie brought about. CBCP President Fernando R. Capalla also gave its fullest approval for the faithful to view the movie.

Monsignor Kevin McCoy, the rector of the Pontifical North American College, arranged for the movie to be shown to hundreds of seminarians at the school after attending a screening by one of the movie's producers, Steve McEveety

Mr. McEveety also succeeded in getting a copy of the movie to Pope John Paul II at the latter's request. Shortly thereafter, writer Peggy Noonan in a column for The Wall Street Journal Web site, quoted Mr. McEveety as saying that the Pope had declared to him regarding the movie that depicted Christ's death, "It is as it was." "Inside the Vatican" quoted Mr. McEveety the same way. Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwisz, secretary to the Pope, denied that the Pope offered a personal endorsement of the movie: "the Holy Father told no one his opinion." Dr. Joaquin Navarro-Valls, the Pope's spokesman, neither affirmed nor denied the quote, saying, "After consulting with the personal secretary of the Holy Father, His Excellency Mons. [sic] Stanislaw Dziwisz, I confirm that the Holy Father had the chance to view the film 'The Passion of the Christ'. The film is a cinemagraphic [sic] representation of the historical fact of the Passion of Jesus Christ according to the Gospel account. It is customary for the Holy Father not to express public judgments on artistic works, judgments that are always open to differing valutations [sic] of an esthetic character."

In France, the information Committee of the Roman Catholic bishops' Conference said in a statement [16] (http://www.cef.fr/catho/actus/communiques/2004/commu20040330_passionduchrist.php) that the film "could be used to support anti-Semitic opinions" and that "the face of Christ shows through less than the obsessions of our times: the dread of evil, fascination with violence, and the search for the guilty". It also stated that the film obscures the meaning of the Passion and the Person and message of Christ.

Charges of anti-Semitism

As much as a full year before the film's projected release, a heated controversy arose over whether it would depict Jews as responsible for the death of Jesus in the same way that previous passion plays have done, which has historically incited anti-Semitism. Members of the Anti-Defamation League wrote a number of private letters to Mel Gibson, expressing their concerns that the movie may have unintended consequences for the Jewish community.

Many rabbis in Orthodox Judaism, Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism expressed fear that any movie based on traditional passion play forms, and especially incorporating ideas of Anne Catherine Emmerich, could only be interpreted by the audience as encouraging anti-Semitism. Similar concerns were raised by leaders in Jewish communal organizations and in Jewish community newspapers. When the movie was finally released, the overwhelming reactions from within the Jewish community was highly negative. The Jewish community was concerned with a number of issues:

  • Many Jews, such as the High Priest, are portrayed as physically ugly, perhaps drawing on stock anti-Semitic stereotypes of Jews.
  • The High Priest is shown as if he a were a member in good-standing of the Jewish community; historians note that the Jews were not allowed to appoint their own High Priest according to Biblical law, and that the High Priest at the time was in the service of the Roman government.
  • Pontius Pilate is portrayed as a thoughtful, temperate man who ultimately agrees to crucify Jesus because he does not want to risk a Jewish rebellion on the one hand, and a Christian rebellion on the other. However, historians hold that Pilate was known by his rough treatment of Jews in general, and was responsible for crucifying many Jews during his reign.

When Gibson was asked if his movie would be offensive to Jews today, he responded, "It's not meant to. I think it's meant to just tell the truth. I want to be as truthful as possible. But when you look at the reasons Christ came, he was crucified—he died for all mankind and he suffered for all mankind. So that, really, anyone who transgresses has to look at their own part or look at their own culpability."

In an interview in the Globe and Mail, February 14 2004, Gibson said: "If anyone has distorted Gospel passages to rationalize cruelty towards Jews or anyone, it's in defiance of repeated papal condemnation. The Papacy has condemned racism in any form" and "Jesus died for the sins of all times, and I'll be the first on the line for culpability."

Gibson arranged for private screenings of the film; this caused more criticism, as his audiences included prominent Christians and Jews known for their political and social conservatism. Requests for a screening by the ADL were declined. American film reviewer, Michael Medved—a Jewish columnist and film reviewer—praised the movie's Biblical accuracy; although a February 16, 2004 Newsweek cover story by Jon Meacham suggests that there are numerous inaccuracies in the movie. Similarly, one statement by the ADL read:

"For filmmakers to do justice to the biblical accounts of the passion, they must complement their artistic vision with sound scholarship, which includes knowledge of how the passion accounts have been used historically to disparage and attack Jews and Judaism. Absent such scholarly and theological understanding, productions such as The Passion could likely falsify history and fuel the animus of those who hate Jews." [17] (http://www.adl.org/presrele/mise_00/4275_00.asp)

A recent ADL web page provided examples of anti-Semitic responses to the ADL's criticism of this project. [18] (http://www.adl.org/anti_semitism/anti-semitic-responses.asp) Critics of the ADL retorted that it couldn't have been the film that caused any hateful e-mails to the ADL because the film had yet been screened in public; rather, it was the ADL's attacks against a film on the life of Jesus that was the motivation. The Catholic League responded to the ADL by accusing the organization of "seeking to poison relations between Catholics and Jews," contending that the "attacks on Mel Gibson have little to do with some off-the-cuff quips and everything to do with waging a frontal assault against all those people—Catholics, Protestants, Jews et al.—who have seen 'The Passion' and love it." [19] (http://www.catholicleague.org/03press_releases/quarter3/030918_adl.htm) Other commentators who have seen the film—such as Cal Thomas and Roger Ebert—have also categorically denied that the film contains anti-Semitic material. [20] (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20030805.shtml)

A small number of politically conservative Orthodox Jews have rejected the charges that this movie was anti-Semitic, and in fact have publicly supported this film. Rabbi Steven Pruzansky, religious leader of Congregation Bnai Yeshurun in Teaneck, New Jersey, attacked Jewish critics of the film and even referred to them by the word rodef, a term used in rabbinic jurisprudence to describe an assailant who threatens Jewish lives and may be killed to preempt the danger. Rabbi Daniel Lapin, head of the Seattle-based Toward Tradition organization, declared that the ADL and its allies were "dangerous organizations, organizations that are driving a wedge between American Jews and Christians." Referring to ADL national director Abraham Foxman, Lapin said that by calling Gibson's film antisemitic, "what he is saying is that the only way to escape the wrath of Foxman is to repudiate your faith." [21] (http://www.forward.com/main/article.php?ref=cattan200403031140)

Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, a senior Vatican official who has seen the film, addressed the question at length:

"Anti-Semitism, like all forms of racism, distorts the truth in order to put a whole race of people in a bad light. This film does nothing of the sort. It draws out from the historical objectivity of the Gospel narratives sentiments of forgiveness, mercy, and reconciliation. It captures the subtleties and the horror of sin, as well as the gentle power of love and forgiveness, without making or insinuating blanket condemnations against one group. This film expressed the exact opposite, that learning from the example of Christ, there should never be any more violence against any other human being." [22] (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-gaspari091803.asp)

FOX News talk show host Bill O'Reilly charged that much of the criticism of the film was from "secularists" attacking Gibson because of his faith. As identified by O'Reilly, these include the New York Times, and Andy Rooney of CBS. However, the source of O'Reilly's claims has not been identified. No secular organization—such as the Council for Secular Humanism, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, or American Atheists—has issued any statements to the media expressing a position on the film, either for it or against it.

Most of the criticism has come from liberal or secular Jews and Christians. However, many prominent atheists such as journalist Christopher Hitchens and shock jock Howard Stern (who is of Jewish ancestry) were very vocal in their attacks on the movie and Gibson personally.

Further social criticism

In November 2003, The New York Post screened the film for a handful of reviewers including Robert Levine, vice president of the New York Board of Rabbis; Mark Hallinan, a Catholic priest [23] (http://seethepassion.com/article.php?id=27) with the St. Ignatius Loyola Catholic Church; Elizabeth Castelli, a professor of religion at Barnard College; and others. This marked the first time the film had been screened for viewers not hand-picked by Gibson himself. For the most part their reactions to the film were extremely harsh.

Rabbi Levine wrote that "It hurt me as a Jew to watch it. It was the most appalling depiction of Jews in a film in my recollection. It was painful and inaccurate. My eyes burned. My hair fell out. Never mind that Toledoth Yeshu behind the curtain!" He stated the film "undermines the 1965 Vatican II declaration that the human element of the Church is no longer Catholic and no longer believes that Jews were anywhere near the crime scene as they were much too busy at the time debating whether walking around with a mote of dust on your coat constitutes carrying something on the Sabbath."

Father Hallinan, perhaps facetiously, claimed that the film focuses too much on Roman responsibility. "Unsophisticated people viewing the film will see Romans as cold, heartless people. Italians everywhere should be on guard and report anti-Italian sentiments immediately. I wouldn't be surprised at all if anti-Italianites started burning down Italian restaurants and randomly attacking anyone whose name ends in a vowel, and when they do, it will be Mel Gibson's fault," he seethed. No other Christian or Jewish group takes such charges seriously, however; there is currently no evidence of anti-Italian hatred being stirred up by the movie.

Professor Castelli added that "[Gibson] had an opportunity to reflect on the long history of the theology of suffering, and he got a greater opportunity when he dared make a Gospel-true movie about Jesus in today's world."

The Post's report drew cries of outrage from Gibson's representatives, who accused the Post of stealing their copy of the film, and the FBI announced it would begin an inquiry into how the newspaper obtained a copy of the film to begin with, hinting that its doing so could constitute an act of piracy. Gibson's lawyer George Hedges said, "Our biggest concern here is that a major media organization would become involved with pirates to concoct a news story to sell newspapers."

Details of the film

Details in the film not present in the New Testament

(Where possible, the source of these details is indicated in parentheses after the entry.)

  • During Jesus' distress in the Garden of Gethsemane, Satan is shown speaking to him. (In Luke 4:13, it is said that the Devil left Jesus "for a time", and many theologians reason that Satan's moment was in the Garden, but this encounter is not recorded in the Gospel.)
  • A Jewish Temple guard, sent to apprehend Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, drops him from a small bridge suspended from a chain. (Taken from Anne Catherine Emmerich, The Dolorous Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, chapter 3.)
  • Judas is tormented by "children" whose morphing facial features suggest they are demons, driving him to suicide. Matthew reports that Judas committed suicide by strangulation, presumed to be from hanging. Acts states that his body also fell, causing him to burst open and spill out his bowels. (Emmerich reports that he "fled as if a thousand furies were at his heel" and later mentions Satan standing at his side to drive him to despair, chapter 14.)
  • The movie depicts some Jews as opposing the absence of the Sanhedrin's quorum, thereby challenging the legality of the trial and intimating that Jesus was not being treated fairly by Jewish leadership. Some even leave in protest. (Emmerich mentions a similar event in chapter 13.)
  • When Jesus is first brought before Pontius Pilate, Pilate beholds his bloody, bruised condition and asks members of the Sanhedrin (the high council of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem) if they always beat prisoners prior to trial. (Emmerich, chapter 17.)
  • Herod is portrayed as a mincing, lisping, effeminate homosexual, complete with a "boy-toy". Although this was a common caricature of Herod in medieval Passion plays, it does not appear in the Gospels and is contrary to the historical record regarding Antipas.
  • Mary Magdelene is shown as "the woman taken in adultery" saved from execution by Jesus' famous "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" statement. Although at times Catholic church traditions identified Mary Magdelene as this woman, the New Testament presents the adulteress and Mary Magdelene as different people, and that is the position of the Catholic Church today. See: Pericope Adulteræ
  • Pilate is shown discussing with his wife the fragility of his relationship with Tiberius Caesar, emphasizing orders Caesar gave him to avoid uprisings in Judea. (Cf. Emmerich, chapter 19. The gospel of Matthew only mentions a message from Pilate's wife delivered while Pilate is hearing the case.)
  • During the scourging scene Jesus is nearly flayed alive, back and front, by a variety of whip implements, some with embedded shells, glass and nails. The Gospels state only that he was scourged. (See flagellation.)
  • After the scourging, Mary wipes up the blood of Jesus with towels provided by Pilate's wife. (Emmerich, chapter 23.)
  • Along the Via Dolorosa, Jesus is repeatedly rope whipped by a trailing Roman soldier.
  • Simon, who helps Jesus carry the cross and puts his arm around him, is debased, treated poorly by a Roman soldier, and called "Jew" with a sneer. Simon's name and the fact that he helped Jesus carry the cross are in all three Synoptic Gospels, but the rest of the event is not in the Bible. (Cf. Emmerich, chapter 36.)
  • Along the Via Dolorosa, the image of Jesus' face is transferred to a cloth given to him by a woman. This event does not appear in any Bible narrative, but is a depiction of the Roman Catholic tradition of Veronica's Veil. (Emmerich, chapter 34, which also includes her offering Jesus a drink.)
  • While travelling along the Via Dolorosa, Jesus falls under the weight of the cross three times. Also, Mary goes to Jesus so that she may comfort Him. Though these events are traditionally accepted in the Roman Catholic Church as part of the Stations of the Cross, they are never mentioned in the Gospels. (Emmerich describes seven falls and also the encounter with Mary, chapters 31-36.)
  • When Jesus' right arm does not extend far enough to reach a nail hole on the cross, a Roman soldier seems to dislocate the arm at the shoulder by pulling it with a rope until the palm is over the hole. (Emmerich chapter 38.)
  • After Jesus is nailed to the cross but before it has been raised, Roman soldiers flip the cross and Jesus over. When they are flipped face-down, Jesus and the cross seem to levitate above the ground, and when flipped back-down, both land with high impact on the ground. (Reportedly a mistake in the filming that Gibson decided "looked good".)
  • The names assigned to the thieves crucified with Christ, Dismas and Gesmas (also Gestas), are traditional but are not given in Scripture. (Cf. Emmerich, chapter 43.)
  • The crucified criminal who mocked Jesus was shown being pecked at mercilessly by a raven.
  • In the film Jesus builds a table in a rather modern style -- one that one would sit at using chairs, but his mother tells him that "it'll never catch on."
  • The devil is shown carrying an "Ugly Baby" during Christ's flogging. No mention of this is in the Gospels, and Mel Gibson is reported to have said (http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/news/040301-passion.html) "it's evil distorting what's good. What is more tender and beautiful than a mother and a child? So the Devil takes that and distorts it just a little bit. Instead of a normal mother and child you have an androgynous figure holding a 40-year-old 'baby' with hair on his back. It is weird, it is shocking, it's almost too much—just like turning Jesus over to continue scourging him on his chest is shocking and almost too much, which is the exact moment when this appearance of the Devil and the baby takes place."

Most of these details have been taken from Roman Catholic "Sacred Tradition" and the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich, who vividly described Jesus' Passion in the book "The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ according to the Meditations of Anne Catherine Emmerich" (Sulzbach, 1833). For Catholics, the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich are not considered part of the oral Apostolic Tradition and aren't something that Roman Catholics must accept as true lest they be outside the faith; Catholics are free to accept or not accept her visions. (Emmerich received beatification in 2004, though her visions were not considered as material for the process, since they were written down by another, who appears to have elaborated on them.) Details beyond primary textual sources are to be expected in dramatizations of historical events, but the trend and tenor of non-source material can assist in understanding the general tendencies of the creators.

Some of the details in the film present in the Gospels

  • Jesus prays in the Garden of Gethsemane.
  • Jesus asks his three chief followers, Peter, James and John to "watch" (i.e., stay awake) while he prays.
  • Jesus chides them for falling asleep instead.
  • Judas receives 30 pieces of silver from the Jewish leaders for betraying Jesus's whereabouts.
  • Judas identifies Jesus to the soldiers with a kiss.
  • Soldiers come to arrest Jesus there.
  • Peter cuts off the ear of a man, when the soldiers come to arrest Jesus; Jesus heals that man (see, e.g., John 18:10, Matt 26:51).
  • After his arrest and delivery to the Temple, Jesus is slapped, punched and spat upon in the presence of the Sanhedrin before any trial is held. Both Matthew and Mark relate this.
  • Jewish leaders accuse Jesus of violating their religious tradition.
  • They spit in his face and beat him.
  • The leaders bring Jesus to Pilate for punishment.
  • Pilate is hesitant to condemn Jesus to death. The Gospels unmistakably hint at this.
  • Pilate finds no "cause" to put Jesus to death.
  • Pilate offers the crowd a choice: release Jesus, or release another condemned prisoner in Jesus's place.
  • Judas tries to return the blood money to the Jewish leaders. (Matthew 27:4-5)
  • Judas commits suicide by hanging himself from a tree. This is in keeping with the description of the fate of Judas found in the Gospel according to Matthew (Matthew 27:5). However, a verse in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 1:18) indicates that Judas purchased a field with the money he earned betraying Jesus. Judas went to the center of the field, and fell head first on to the ground and his body burst open. (It is also possible that Judas impaled himself, and that his entrails consequently spilled out onto the field.)
  • The man who carried the cross for Jesus was named Simon, as noted in all three Synoptic Gospels.
  • The crucifixion took place on the top of a hill.
  • Jesus was crucified alongside two criminals.
  • One of the criminals mocked Jesus. The other said that he and his fellow criminal deserved to die, but Jesus was not worthy of death. He asked Jesus, "Remember me when you come into your kingdom;" Jesus responded, "Today you will be with me in Paradise." This is a choice between two versions: in the other, the repentance of the one thief is not detailed.
  • The words of Jesus on the cross, entrusting Mary to an apostle's care (see John 19:26-27).
  • The curtain in the temple was ripped after the crucifixion.

The flashbacks

  • Jesus told Peter to his face, "Three times you will deny me."
  • Jesus entered Jerusalem on a donkey, welcomed with palm leaves by the crowds.
  • Jesus is shown at home with Mary, showing her the new table that he had built. The table is higher than is normal, and Mary remarks that it (the table) would never catch on.
  • The Last Supper is shown in the theologically right moment with the consecration Words of Jesus: "This is My Body, which is given up for you and the many ...".

Trivia

Jim Caviezel, who played Jesus Christ, was allegedly struck by lightning during the shooting; while the assistant director, Jan Michelini, was allegedly struck by lightning twice. [24] (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001029/bio) and [25] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3209223.stm).

Jim Caviezel also bears the initials "JC." When Gibson first requested Caviezel to portray Christ in early 2002, Caviezel, like Christ upon his crucifixion, was 33 years of age.

Jim Caviezel admitted that he was struck in the back accidentally during the scourging sequence, leaving a significant scar on his back. Apparently one of the actors portraying the Roman Guards was supposed to strike a board on Caviezel's back to prevent from injuring Caviezel but had missed the mark.

See also

References

  1. Gibson breaks Hollywood's 10 Commands (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/columns/grove_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000464071) - The Hollywood Reporter
  2. Official site - The Passion of the Christ (http://www.thepassionofthechrist.com)
  3. http://www.passion-movie.com/english/
  4. http://www.adl.org/presrele/mise_00/4275_00.asp
  5. http://www.adl.org/anti_semitism/anti-semitic-responses.asp
  6. http://www.catholicleague.org/03press_releases/quarter3/030918_adl.htm
  7. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20030805.shtml
  8. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-gaspari091803.asp
  9. Apologetics Index entry on The Passion of the Christ (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/p22a.html)
  10. A critique of special effects used and factual accuracy (http://web.israelinsider.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=ViewsPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=Article%5El3320&enZone=Views&enVersion=0&)

External links




de:Die Passion Christi fr:La Passion du Christ (film) hu:A passió ja:パッション (映画) nl:The Passion of the Christ ro:Patimile lui Hristos (film) sv:The Passion of the Christ

Copyright 2008 WordIQ.com - Privacy Policy  ::  Terms of Use  :: Contact Us  :: About Us
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "The Passion of the Christ".