The Impact of the Motion Picture “The Passion of the Christ” to Society

Passion of the Christ is a movie that depicts the last twelve hours of the public life of Jesus of Nazareth.  The motion picture is centered on his agony, arrest, trial, suffering and death.  Due to its explicit content, it garnered different reactions from different people and became a recipient of criticism and praise bombardments.  The film received comments in the aspects of philosophy, religion, film principles, theology and even politics.  It made a secondary barrier among people who already have religious and cultural differences

Anti-Semitic Controversy
Passion of the Christ’s greatest critical adversary is the Jewish community.  Prior to the film’s release, controversial issues were already at hand, it was whether the Passion of the Christ was anti-Jewish or not.  The Jewish were concerned and commented that the film has anti-Semitism implications.  The Jewish people claim that the whole story of Jesus Christ was anti-Jewish, they also point out that the bible is a concrete proof of these claims.  The Jewish even say that it was of great relief that the creators of the film did not rely heavily on the scriptures, otherwise it will be more catastrophic than it already was.  The anti-Semitic connotation is said to have been heavily seen in the personality of the Jewish High Priest, Caiaphas and the irrational mob of Jews who support Caiaphas’ heartless fury against Christ’s.

Jewish critics are amazed on how the Christians are unreasonable and naive in pointing the pointing the finger Christ’s death to the Jews while they should be in dept of gratitude for their divine salvation.  Jewish ministers were troubled upon receiving comments from a 21-year old Muslim woman who viewed the film was persuaded and said that the Jews’ lies were exposed and they must be condemned for it.  Ironically, it is customary to Islam Conformists that a prophet should not be portrayed in any form of art, be it in literature, film or theater.  Apart from racial issues, the film’s treatment was also questioned by the Jews.  Jewish Critics also add that crucial characters such as Barabbas do not match the textual description.  The film aggravated further disapproval upon seeing a biblical passage in a particular part of the film.  Non-Christian and Jewish detractors see the film as a form of religious arrogance.

Impact on Judaism

Several conservative Jews repel the theory that the film’s intent has anti-Jewish insinuations.  They believe that there are Jewish interpretations that shed a positive light.  Characters like Simon of Cyrene, Mary Magdalene, Veronica, Mary, Peter and John proved that the film is not prejudiced or promote prejudice.  This group of Jews even supported the film.  Furthermore, the movie clearly shows that there are Jews on both sides.  The movie evidently showed Christ as a temple centered Jew.  Simon of Cyrene is scorned as a Jew by Roman Soldiers when commanded to carry the cross.  The only person profiled in a shot as a stereotype of a Jew is Peter, although it was appearance-wise and not personality or attitude.  Conventional Jews even overlooked at the lapses and suggested that the film bequeaths an underlying statement that it is not Jews per se who opted for Jesus’ execution, but just a fraction of the Jewish leadership, and within that group there are opposing parties on the crucifixion as well.

The Conventional Jews thought of the anti-Jewish allusion to be preposterous.  The majority of the Christians during the time the Gospels were written regard themselves as Jewish since they embraced the decree that Jesus is the fulfillment of what God had promised.  Christian anti-Semitism by was still decades away from even starting when the events of Jesus’ death and suffering took place.  They also defended that the film’s versions of the Jewish rulers have truthful tendencies; history proves that unlawful activities on a mutiny against the Roman Regime once tore the Jews apart.

Judaism adds that the visual representation of the totalitarian will of the Jewish leaders based from the original evangelical scriptures also act and express in accordance to the inclination of every influential leader throughout history.   They suggest that the feedback of the contemporary Jews is illogical and does not deny the historical and scriptural relation just because of their negation to the brutal truth that their ancient predecessors have connived and persuaded a local governor to have a man, whom they feared to be undermining their influence to the local populace, condemned to death.  Furthermore, the High Priests are depicted as influential leaders only and not sadists who inflict unbearable torment, racial issues and outrage should be on the Italians standpoint since the punishers were Roman Soldiers and speak colloquial Latin.

Biblical Differences
Christians contended that the film were the actual events on the final hours of Christ.  However Non-Christians and some theologians raise debate about the legitimacy of the film.  Theologians say there were neither character build-ups nor a background of Jesus’ teachings.  The film attributes its differences in three aspects; Mel Gibson’s personal belief, typical representations and artistic license.

Theologians note the differences of the film from its original source which is the Bible.

• Theologians question the appearance of the devil in the form of a woman. These scholars confirm that it is not indicated in the Bible.
• Theologians also contest that the details of the violence on Christ’s arrest were not included in the Bible.
• Pilate’s sympathy for Christ was meticulously examined as contrary to the Bible.
• King Herod was presented as a homosexual pederast divergent of biblical description as a womanizer.
• The other thief crucified with Jesus was harshly pecked by a crow.
• Jesus’ blood was wiped off with towels provided by Pilate’s wife Claudia after the scourging.
• The film’s plot does not follow the Biblical source but the Roman-Catholic tradition of the Stations of the Cross.

Controversies with Christian Groups

Most Christians claim the film The Passion of the Christ as a portal to the modern world that is filthy and immoral.  Many core groups of Christian faith deemed the movie to have evangelical purpose.  Conversely, there are some Christian Groups, particularly, contemporary Christians that show dissatisfaction over the film.  They claim that the creators of the movie have underlying statements that they wish to convey.  Director Mel Gibson is a traditional Roman Catholic who is conservative with the practices of the faith, Christian critics gloat on Gibson’s activities and the connection of his beliefs to the film.  They claim that Gibson’s intent for the viewers of the film is erroneous.  Christians include that the film is promoting the Roman Catholic principle of Sacramentalism.  Sacramentalism means that, Christ suffered and died on the cross, this was the price of salvation which in turn, man has to distribute this salvation.  That man cannot achieve salvation through faith alone but by going to Christ through the Catholic Church and receiving sacraments such as Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist etc.  To a Catholic Priest.  Contemporary Christians deem that Gibson’s beliefs and his treatment of the film are in harmony with Roman Catholic Theology, thus, dubbing the film to have subliminal content.

What concerns Modern Christians more is that the motion picture is not solely based on the Bible, it also utilized source material from Roman Catholic Traditions.  They say that the details of Christ’s torture in the film were not written in the Bible.  Claiming that if Christ’s suffering were as authentic as the movie tells, He could have been dead before his death sentence was passed down.  Christians condemn the film as Biblically unreliable and in a sarcastic behavior, a Catholic film.

Christians also commented on the other aspects of the film aside from its plot and authenticity.  Christians also took their fury out to the cast of the film.  They express great disapproval of the cast. They claim lead actor Jim Caviezel is a devoted Roman Catholic and religiously follow the principles of Roman Catholicism.  Christians also integrate that the film is as despicable as the people in production.  This was an attack to the actresses in the film, Monica Belucci who played Mary Magdalene, who was a former adult film actress, Rosita Celentano who played Satan, Claudia Gerini who played Claudia Procles and Maia Morgenstern who all had prior careers in the adult entertainment industry.

Contemporary Christians also gloated on acclaimers and supporters of the movie.  They accept the fact that the movie was an innovation in spreading the Good News to non-believers; however they also state that films and staged presentations do not count as substitutes to conventional methods of preaching.  They insinuated that the last time other media was used to proclaim the Gospel was the time when the translation of the Scriptures were forbidden.  They conclude that the Bible endowed us with the astounding significance of preaching and bequeaths us with the reasons why it is irreplaceable by other forms of communication.

Historical Conflicts

Some historians also doubted the motion picture’s accuracy.  Latin was the language spoken in the movie; historians claim that Jesus spoke Greek and Aramaic.  The appearance of Christ in the movie was questioned by historians as well.  According to historians, sporting of longhair is not unlikely for a Jewish man during that time.   Historians believe that the Gospels were penned decades after the supposed date of resurrection, they also argue on the phenomenon of the occurrence and whether to consider it a historical event or not (Nwazota 2).

The Passion and the World of Politics

Critics speculate that The Passion of the Christ will likely endorse the racial wars of the United States Government.  President George W. Bush even expressed a great deal of interest in seeing the film.  Two prominent Christian Sects gave 2 tickets to each member of the Congress; Critics also indicated that these groups were conservative Christians.  They voiced out extreme praises to the film are prominent Bush supporters who opted for his re-election.  It is also noted that these groups are politically inclined and supportive of the blatant U.S Government agenda like Imperialism and Warfare.  Word has it that the movie strengthened the groups’ ties with American Politics.

Comments on Extreme Violence

Tom Holtz, a contemporary Christian critic expressed unease feelings on the gore details depicted in the movie.  Parents and Guardians were advised not to take children in viewing the motion picture.  The inhumane cruelty on Christ was hard to bear.  Some conservative Critics say that the movie was truthful, while other critics claim that there were touches of exaggeration.

Pride and Prejudice

People of African-American descent expressed extreme ire on the representation of Christ in the movie.  These people were dismayed by the fact that Jesus was portrayed by a Caucasian actor.  Norm Allen Jr., a secular humanist indicate that the film gave a picture of typecasts.   The movie also figuratively illustrates that Jews are malevolent and that women are by nature, devilish.  Critics also include that the film’s treatment on Herod were an obvious attack on homosexuals, a representation that has no historical and factual origins.

Secular Standpoint

The unconventional narrative of the film started in the middle of the story’s entirety, this approach on The Passion of the Christ did not hinder Character build-up.  Film critics praise the film’s execution and noted that the film showed who the main Character was prior to the violent persecution.  Film critic Orson Scott-Card urged that the flashbacks and the lines of Christ were perfectly timed in every situation throughout the film. Critics embraced the film in the true sense of the word, as an artistic creation and not in a theological, racial and dogmatic perspective.

Works Cited

Ebert, Roger.  “The Passion of the Christ”.  Chicago Sun-Times.  21, February, 2004

:Anti-Semitic Response.” 13 August 2003.  Anti-Defamation League.  23 November 2007.

http://www.adl.org/ anti_semitism/anti-semitic-responses.asp

“The Cardinal and the passion.” 18 September 2003.  National Review Online.  23 November

2007. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-gaspari091803.asp

“Some thoughts on the Passion.” 27 May 2004.  Council for Secular Humanism.  23 November

2007. <http://www.secularhumanism .org/library/aah/allen_13_4.htm>

“Civilization Watch.” 29 February 2004.  The Ornery American.  23 November 2007.

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-2-29.html

“Passion of the Christ incites Passionate Criticism.” 25 February 2004.  Public Broadcasting

Service.  24 November 2007.  http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june04/passion_2-25.html

Edelstein, David.  “Mel Gibson’s Bloody Mess.”  Slate Magazine.  24 February 2004