md传媒国产剧

HYPE VERSUS HOPE

SOME REFLECTIONS ON MEL GIBSON'S FILM ON THE PASSION OF JESUS

Most Rev. Stefan Soroka
Metropolitan of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in U.S.A.
Archbishop of the Archeparchy of Philadelphia

September 29, 2003

Webmaster's Note: Most Rev. Stefan Soroka is one of a few bishops who have been invited to a screening of a rough cut of this upcoming film. Although one or two others have spoken publicly about their favorable reactions, and others have expressed reservations privately, this is to our knowledge the first detailed analysis of the film by a member of the Catholic hierarchy. Readers should recognize that the eventually released theatrical version may differ in some ways from the version reviewed here. We thank the Metropolitan Archbishop for allowing us to post his reflections here. 

Having had the opportunity to view an unedited version of Mel Gibson's film The Passion, I can begin to understand the developing hype and controversy regarding this soon-to-be-released movie. I suggest that the hype, in part being engendered and fueled by the producers of the film, is necessary because of the rather shallow content of the movie itself. I would not recommend the movie to my friends nor to the faithful (and particularly the young), because the film, while interesting in the way some things are portrayed (particularly evil), lacks content to really engage my interest.

If you want to see over two hours of cruelty, intense torture, and lots of blood, with tidbits of informing scenes of who this Jesus is, you might want to sacrifice your time and money to see this movie. The Passion makes an extraordinary effort at presenting the horrific effects of a crucifixion, a very cruel punishment inflicted by the Roman empire on its subjects. Roman soldiers are depicted in long and lingering scenes of enjoying the scourging, whipping with instruments that tear at the flesh, and exercising their authority harshly and without mercy. The film offers very few flashback scenes of Jesus in his lifetime, and ends sharply with just an indication of his resurrection. There is very little offered to help the viewer to come to know and appreciate Jesus in his humanity and in his divinity.

My comment to Mr. Gibson and his staff at the viewing was that I was left with the gnawing question, "Where is the hope?" In the unedited version, there is nothing to suggest or to offer hope in Jesus Christ, in light of his crucifixion and resurrection. A number of representatives of other faiths also present at the viewing drew attention to this significant element of Christian faith; that is the resurrection of Jesus Christ in light of his crucifixion. The producers' hope is that viewers will be intrigued enough with the intensity of suffering endured by Jesus, and will thus then be inspired to search him in the scriptures. And yet, the hype of the producers suggests that the film leads one "to identify with the new, life, hope and forgiveness he offers". The film does not invite me to a yearning for these.

What is particularly intriguing in the film is the manner in which Mel Gibson portrays evil. The human-like figure of evil seemingly glides through various scenes, always in intense eye contact with its adversaries. Often very little or nothing is said, as is presented in a scene where Mary, the Mother of Jesus, is presented very beautifully as a strong woman, confident in her faith, and yet very mournful and compassionate while witnessing the passion being endured by Jesus.

Particularly troubling is the manner in which Caiaphas, the chief [priest], and some members of his Sanhedrin are portrayed.  Caiaphas is not presented as a learned rabbi, making what one would expect, that is a reasoned argument from his perspective for the crucifixion of Jesus. Rather, Caiaphas' demands are placed in a framework of having much greater influence with authorities in Rome than does Pontius Pilate, and manipulating Pontius Pilate. What left me very uneasy was the close personification of evil with Caiaphas, again presented as seemingly gliding very much as one, with Caiaphas bearing forward and evil appearing as very much in control. Such scenes offer great injustice to our Jewish brothers and sisters and has significant potential to incite hostility to Jews and Judaism. Mr. Gibson's response at the viewing to concerns for offending Jews centered around that "the books" were even harsher in their presentation. Interestingly, Mr. Gibson and his staff never used the words "sacred scriptures" , "the Gospels", the "Gospel writers", and so on, preferring to only refer to "the books". I would have preferred to hear a more genuine desire on the part of Mel Gibson and his producers to be more historically correct in the depiction of the role of the Jewish leadership and crowd. Rather, he chose to emphasize his intentions to add even more detail and dramatic effect to already cruel and painful scenes of the suffering of Jesus.

Hype or Hope? Just a few days after the viewing, the film's producers asked the viewers by e-mail to provide letters of support for the film to "help them gain momentum right now". They gave us the green light to speak about the movie, and offered assistance to promote the movie among our constituents. This article is my attempt to provide a reflection on the movie, its merits and its potentially divisive effects on interfaith understanding and dialogue. What is most unfortunate is that the film's shallow presentation on the life of Jesus and the significance of the resurrection will leave viewers focused on the harsh and cruel reality of the crucifixion of Jesus, offering little opportunity to identify with the life and hope offered in Jesus Christ for all mankind. The shallow presentation of the high [priest] and his role, as well as the close personification of evil journeying with him, will give viewers an inaccurate and unjust portrayal of Jews and Judaism, and may contribute to fuel the ugly passion of Anti-Semitism.
 
Frankly, without the hype, this movie will not interest many viewers because it fails to offer hope