The Passion of the Christ: a borderline snuff film

I finally got around to see The Passion of the Christ. I could see the audience being divided into four different major groups. Those who liked it because of how they can connect to something Mel Gibson attempted to communicate, those who disliked it because they felt that their group were unfairly portrayed, those in the middle who appreciated it for what it was, and then those in the middle who were confused and didn't appreciate it for what it was because they weren't sure what "it" really was.

To say that the violence of the punishing and torturing of Christ is extreme and very graphic is an understatement. Violence is one of the biggest problems I have with the film. I have an ability to separate between real life violence and the ones in the movie. I don't have nightmares or physical effects watching something gory on films but I cringed while watching The Passion of the Christ and felt depressed throughout the movie.

What is the redeeming value in putting the audience through the brutal whipping scene where Jesus screamed in pain? The louder he screamed, the louder the laughter from the Roman soldiers and the harder they whipped him. What is the redeeming value of putting us through a slow-motion of the whips hitting the flesh, splitting it open, and blood splattering all over the place? What is the redeeming value of showing us how cruel and heartless a human being can be treated?

Not to say that this scene wasn't effective since it managed to make me feel totally depressed. My immediate reaction was that this is probably about as close as I could get to watch a snuff film; how they managed to avoid an NC-17 rating is a mystery.

From talking to a Christian who knows the story well, she said that Gibson's intention was to show how much suffering Christ went through so that it could be appreciated. When asked why she refused to see the film she said that she already knew the story and didn't want to sit through the violence.

If that is the case then who is this film for? Doesn't it mean that the explicit graphic is unnecessary if a Christian who shares Gibson's belief doesn't want to see the the explicit showing of the brutality of the Roman soldiers and how Christ took it all in stride?

I thought that the film lost its message with the unnecessary graphic violence. There were some flashbacks here and there that showed the lighter sides between Jesus and his disciples and Jesus and Mary before Christ was captured but not enough to salvage the film.

The story began when Jesus was captured and ended when he died on the cross. The rising of Jesus scene felt incomplete as if Gibson wanted to show us that there was a light at the end of the tunnel after kept showing us the horrific images. He had his cake and ate it, too.

The production was first rate but I can't imagine anyone paying attention to it. The acting was convincing enough even though each character seemed to be stuck in the same emotions throughout the movie. For example, the Roman soldiers – ruthless and sadistic; Jesus Christ – in pain and agony; Mary and Christ’s disciples – helpless, crying, and depressing and so on.

Before seeing the movie, I thought that I would fall into the third group of audience mentioned in the first paragraph and would appreciate the movie for what it was. Alas, Gibson managed to put me right into the fourth group of confused audience. To some degree, I understand and appreciate Christianity after going to a Catholic school for nine years so my criticism of the movie isn't equivalent to a criticism of the religion. But with the appreciation that comes from the knowledge, I feel that The Passion of the Christ was too personal and didn’t accomplish anything that hasn’t already been accomplished.