The Spectrum was allotted the opportunity to view a screening of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ," which opens in theaters nationwide today. Senior Arts & Life Editor Nicholas Mendola and Staff Reporter Brian Weinstein attended the screening together and engaged in a discussion regarding specific details of the film, Weinstein's review of the film and Mendola's and Weinstein's differing viewpoints and upbringings. Mendola was raised Christian while Weinstein was raised Jewish.
Nicholas Mendola: In your review of the film, you cite the lack of back-story or character development. While I admit that the movie had its shortcomings, I think this is a little off base. In the Gospels, Judas is simply someone who betrays Christ and hangs himself, and Mary doesn't appear much in the Crucifixion scene.
Gibson takes Judas and gives anyone with or without background information a glimpse into his regret, focusing on his gnawed lips and distorted visions. He also makes Mary a seminal character, utilizing flashbacks as a very effective tool in not only emphasizing her importance, but also showing a very human side to Jesus Christ.
Brian Weinstein: I feel that Gibson should have taken more time to explore the themes he presented in those flashbacks. With almost 120 minutes of pain and suffering, the movie is difficult to digest without knowing what lead up to the Crucifixion. The brief flashbacks do have a certain power in relation to the later scenes, but they would have worked better if they were written in as actual scenes that provided background character development, rather than having been presented as conveniently relevant flashbacks.
Unfortunately, the lack of character depth is overshadowed and contrasted by the stunning sets and costumes, which are the best parts of movie.
NM: I understand your sentiments, but I think beginning the film with any scene other than the striking one that finds Christ sweating blood would be less impacting. You are absolutely right about the visuals. The scenes in Pontius Pilate's courtyard - with its riled up peasant crowd demanding Christ's death, the priests' masterful gameplaying and the Roman guards visually nervous inside a classical Roman landscape - were nothing short of brilliant.
The foggy night in the Garden of Gethsemane is about as simply breathtaking as it gets, and I think that the symbolism used by Gibson would normally be found as cheesy, but in this case it alleviates a problem you raised in your article: a movie-goer who may not have background info. As an initial scene, it immediately details Christ's relationship with his Father, something perhaps unclear to an unbeliever.
BW: I think that the basic premise of Jesus Christ being the Son of God, much less being arrested while praying to his Father, establishes the relationship between Jesus and God to anyone in the audience, whether or not they have background information regarding the story.
Gibson makes the symbolism too heavy-handed again late in the movie, when the scene that depicts Roman soldiers disrobing Jesus is inter-cut with flashbacks to the Last Supper. These scenes show Jesus removing the cloth that covers the bread. Another scene showing Pilate washing his hands of the Crucifixion is cross cut with flashbacks of Jesus washing his hands at the Last Supper. It is simply Gibson slamming the audience over the head with poorly constructed symbolism.
NM: Is it poorly constructed symbolism, or is it a sincere romantic notion from a deeply religious director? The flashbacks seemed a natural nod to a happier time in Christ's life. If you were being beaten to a bloody pulp only to have nine-inch nails driven through your hands, I'd think your mind would try to remind you of the time you opened your birthday present to find Nintendo.
What stayed with me in my nightmares was Gibson's depiction of Satan. An attractive face, shaved head, no eyebrows and a menacing set of eyes were the perfect backdrop for pure evil. Throw in a worm crawling up her nose, snakes coming out of her dress and a demonic baby and you've got yourself a serious monster. While far more prevalent in the movie than in the Bible, it seems a good addition without being featured prominently at all. Hey, you have to add some art, right?
BW: Right. I enjoyed the artistic liberties Gibson took by including Satan as a character, even though he - or she - is not personally present in this part of the Gospels. While the majority of the movie was taken straight from the New Testament, Gibson was able to make Jesus's suffering more mentally painful with Satan's cold glances at various points in the film. Even though Caiaphas was presented as the primary villain, it was smart of Gibson to give a more ethereal cause for Jesus's pain.
NM: Holla. (Challah.)
