The attitude towards the movie, directed by Mel Gibson, which has caused quite divergent views before its release on the screens, mainly consists in the two opposite positions. Some believe that the picture of the last twelve hours of Jesus' life is tendentious, reflecting the radical views of an ultra-conservative Catholic, who does not blame exclusively of Jews and Romans in the execution of the Son of God, but is inclined to the idea of antagonism between the priests and the person, who boldly declared himself Messiah and thus encroached on the ecclesiastical authority. Others do not see in this tape attempts to interpret events of two thousand years ago, allegedly presented almost in the manner of documentary reportage, cruel and ruthless, as if we were talking about any modern dramatic collision of irreconcilable opponents, divergent in matters of faith ("Passion Of The Christ”).
Intolerance runs the world – in this way it would be possible to actually formulate the main meaning of the message of Mel Gibson, which he tried to convey in his film "The Passion of the Christ." After all, the original name was limited to the word "Passion" that strongly emphasizes the generic nature of suffering and trials, even endured by a particular person. Jesus is not accidentally shown predominantly during the unbearable agony of endless physical abuse and killing of his flesh, when blood and wounds make the human body like a piece of meat, devoid of life and spirit. However, the audience, which seemed to be carried over to the beginning of our era, to become direct witnesses of torture of the one who called himself Christ, should partake of the flesh and blood, to make a heavy way of the cross with him, following the crowd towards the Calvary or even identifying himself Simon, helping to carry the cross, as well as compassion for the grief of the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene ("THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST’").
We believe that Mel Gibson set out a gal to show how Christ tormented to come down to the people, and he showed it very naturalistically. What Christ experienced was so terrible. Otherwise, this picture could not be as poignant, otherwise the director failed to convey to the viewer what he wanted. People often criticize films with excessive cruelty, abundant scenes of violence and so on. But we believe that there is a huge difference in the way, in which the cruelty and violence are shown, when you look at the Japanese film "of Battle Royale," and when you look at Mel Gibson’s film "The Passion of the Christ." People need to be aware of this difference. The violence in the film “The Passion of the Christ”, or in the movies about World War II, or films such as "Heavy Sand" about the Jewish ghetto, is much more terrible for the viewers’ eyes. But this is true. Mel Gibson was trying to convey it to the people. He was not trying to cause antipathy to his film, he merely tried to convey as accurately as possible the suffering of Christ in the last hours of his life. I was always shocking by the difference between the violence that Jesus Christ underwent much more than by any other violence. I think that a Christian at the time, when he undergoes the violence should always remember that the Christ is suffering inside him. The film contains in fact a lot of violence, but to show it was a must. The story would not be so without a real violence. It was the most severe penalty in the history, so the film was supposed to be the same (Plate).
This picture does not have the goal to shock anyone. It is the suffering that Jesus endured for the sake of the human race. The viewer had to physically feel the pain that moved the Savior. And Mel Gibson managed to cope with this problem with perfection. Of course for me, as for any other spectator it was a kind of test to look at the suffering of Christ, shown in this film, but it is just not worth it criticizing the film for a genuine frankness. The doctrine of God is known to everyone, but, looking at the screen, you start to realize the sacrifice that brought the Son of God for the people (Eber).
The film is not liked by some film critics in every little corner of the world, such as the film critics in Germany, who said that the scenes of violence in its cruelty violate all bounds of what is permitted. Why is that? It is possible to explain such a reaction only to the fact that some people simply cannot tolerate violence and when they read the Bible, then delved only in those parts of the book, which spoke of forgiveness, kindness and all these good things, skipping past the eye of its stories of betrayal and torment. Many have written in their reviews that the Son of God has always been associated with morals and doing the right thing, but know this Jesus, but very few before the film by Mel Gibson knew about his pain and suffering, as they were shocking and inhumane. It is this idea that has been supposed to be shown, the idea to show the things that the people miss, what they rarely think about and are not aware of how much it was scary, cruel and violent as Jesus had to endure.
For example, the Orthodox experts also note the presence of excessive naturalism in scenes of flagellation of Christ in the film. But they themselves explain this by saying that it is associated with the Catholic perception of events. Mel Gibson is from an Old Catholic family and depicted the sensual side events, which usually draw the attention of the Catholic tradition.
We would like to recall the main argument of opponents of Gibson's view on the death of Christ. They say that the whole movie is one continuous blood and violence, and this meat Gibson had originally planned to tear off more money with happy spectators. This argument arises on the basis of a variety of other films, including even the famous "Gladiator", which is also full of bright and positive colors. Yes, to a certain degree Gibson hoped that the movie is able to shock the people, but only in order to sober up those viewers who are used to watching beautiful historical film about love at dinner. Is it now worth questioning tons of cine glamor, seeking to prove that the people two thousand years ago were exactly the same they are now. For each of us, impregnated with modernity, the journey to a time machine for a few thousand years ago, would be like a nightmare.
Few people, who criticized the film "The Passion of the Christ" for its excessive cruelty and an abundance of violence simply faced the fact that they were not willing to look at approximate to true suffering and death of Jesus Christ. To be fair we have to say that this film is really filmed mildly not for everyone. Due to the excessive violence, the story of Christ cannot be shown to children. It limits the vastness of the masses, who are watching this movie. Besides, as I said nervous people cannot just criticize this movie because for them it is simply not possible to see the picture really up to the end. From this it becomes clear why some people made a critical manifesto against the film.
The key word for Gibson was suffering. All the western directors before Gibson worked within the cinematic adaptations, and obtained some parody. Gibson went the other way. He chose the foundation of the genre structure of the so-called "passionate action", which is characteristic for Western Christian (primarily Catholic) worldview. The audience criticized the film "The Passion of the Christ" only on the basis of soft character of all the biblical scenes in the films. All the viewers were accustomed to this, and it was difficult to reconstruct the mind on a realistic, brutal way. In fact, the people have a problem with adapting to the realism of the narration in the film by Mel Gibson, and it was the main reason why people have taken quite critically his films. And indeed, the theme of Jesus Christ is so deep and complex that to make a film about the Biblical events is an incredible responsibility. It is the cross that every director, writer and screenwriter can take on his shoulders.
An ultraconservative Catholic, Mel Gibson was able to make up his cross and make a picture of the most important spiritual events of all Christians, the most religious and realistic? This question is probably the best answer for those who criticized the picture. Realism is happening rolls over. It will tell every person, who saw the picture that the violence is unacceptable for many people in this context, the case indirectly. Yes, this movie cannot be shown to young children, everyone understands this and particular Mel Gibson himself. Yes, a lot of violence is difficult to accept, even for people with persistent mental, but the director has achieved the main goal, people imbued with what is happening, at least for the most part. And most importantly, what it would have been cruelty – the film received mostly approval from the various Christian churches and denominations.
As for the audience, everyone after the movie has to realize that in fact Jesus endured. And if you used this particular wonder, then think how it was and how much agony the Son of God suffered. Only after this realization you can start watching the movie, or "The Passion of the Christ" may simply shock. This film and the violence the people have to perceive correctly. This is not a demonstration of violence for the sake of violence, as in Tarantino films, so-called aestheticization of violence. Here, violence is something else, and it must be perceived differently. The viewer needs to understand that violence in the movie "The Passion of the Christ" is an attempt to the most accurately and sensual display all of what Jesus endured for the sake of all of us. Mel Gibson being a religious man is trying to pierce the viewer a sense that everyone felt the suffering Son of God. But how is it possible to show such an event without the presence of violence? I think that it is a rhetorical question. Each viewer must realize this, and then the violence in this film will be perceived very differently.
Works cited
ChristianityToday.com,. "Passion Of The Christ, The". N.p., 2016. Web. 27 Feb. 2016.
Ebert, Roger. "The Passion Of The Christ Movie Review (2004) | Roger Ebert".Rogerebert.com. N.p., 2004. Web. 27 Feb. 2016.
IMDb,. "The Passion Of The Christ (2004)". N.p., 2016. Web. 27 Feb. 2016.
Plate, S. B. "Book Review: Mel Gibson's Bible: Religion, Popular Culture, And The Passion Of The Christ, Jesus And Mel Gibson's The Passion Of The Christ, Pondering The Passion: What's At Stake For Christians And Jews?, On The Passion Of The Christ: Exploring The Issues Raised By The Controversial Movie, Mel Gibson's Passion: The Film, The Controversy, And Its Implications, Mel Gibson's Passion And Philosophy, After The Passion Is Gone: American Religious Consequences". Christianity & Literature 56.3 (2007): 535-539. Web.
"‘THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST’". Oncology Times 27.4 (2005): 62. Web.
