RAPPORT FRINGE ... MARGINAAL VERSLAG ... FRINGE BERICHT
Reviewing fringe theatre, film, art and performance in London and internationally credits
venues
|
awards
|
interviews
|
features
|
fashion
|
newsletter
|
recipes
|
news
|
gossip
|
home
|
about
|
dublin
|
edinburgh
|
links
|
contact
|
drinks Monday 4 August 08
The Passion Of The Christ
London - 127-minute feature film - April 04
Heard the one about the Jew, the catholic, and the Palestinian? Jason Korsner, John Park, and Dr Husam Asi review The Passion Of The Christ...
Dr Husam Asi is a screenwriter and publisher, originally an Israeli Palestinian and Muslim (writes John Park). I'm catholic and a writer. Jason Korsner is Jewish and a journalist. We're neither typical nor atypical of our religions or traditions. We're all British, live in London, and we're friends.
We saw The Passion on the night the events portrayed began - catholics call it Maundy Thursday, the night of the Last Supper. For Jews it's the middle of Passover. For the world, it's the night and day everything changed - with repercussions that have overshadowed 2,000 years of our common history.
We talked for several hours over a meal (the irony of the timing not being lost)after the film. We discussed the ideas of God and Christ, the diaspora and death of Jews in World War 2, the modern situation in Palestine, the invasion of Iraq, the loss and sometimes regaining of religion during life - and the direct content of the film itself.
We wrote the reviews afterwards, and separately without, as quiz-show hosts put it, conferring. Coincidentally, they're written on Good Friday, the day of the Crucifixion.
FR reviews are generally written in the third person (no 'I'), but as these are personal perspectives, we've departed from that convention. Reviews are normally edited. In this case, the authors' words are reproduced unaltered.
For readers not familiar with the religions and events involved, a set of short background notes are included at the end of the reviews.
The Passion - reviewed by Dr Husam Asi
I felt sick watching this film: it was saturated with masochistic violence and one man’s blood. The film ruined the biblical story by depicting it in a nonsensical way and with an overemphasis on the brutality suffered by Jesus.
The film begins with the Jews searching for Jesus to bring him to justice. When the agents of the Jews find Jesus they beat him viciously and take him to the temple where he is taunted and spat on by the Jewish priests. Later he is taken to the Roman governor in order to be prosecuted.
Interestingly, at this stage, the Romans are not interested in Jesus. Actually, they want to protect him from angry Jews, who demanded his crucifixion. Reluctantly, the governor finally decides to chastise him and then to crucify him.
Suddenly, the Romans become sadistically violent. They whip Jesus so hard as if he is their worst enemy. Then, despite being on the verge of death, they make him carry the cross up to the olive mountain. Even Superman wouldn’t be able to do this, but Jesus did.
For over an hour we watch a bruised and bleeding Jesus carrying a heavy cross up the mountain, as he is being whipped by the brutal Romans. Strangely, at this stage the Jews are quiet and sometimes even compassionate towards their cursed man, Jesus.
This film was not anti-Semitic. On the contrary, I think that the director made great efforts to implicate the Romans in order to clear the Jews of any misdeed toward Jesus and to avoid being branded as anti-Semitic, which could ruin his film in the box office.
For me, I can’t understand why there is a need to skew the story: it is universally accepted that that Jesus was killed by his own people, the Jews, because he dared to call himself 'the Messiah'. That is the supposed to be the 'message' of the original story: that Jesus's own people rejected him and crucified him, but that on the cross, he forgave them. Didn’t the churches in Europe burn people alive for being sorcerers during the Dark Ages? Didn’t the English behead their king, Charles I? Why can’t we depict the Jews doing the same?
(c) Dr Husam Asi - 9 April 04
The Passion - reviewed by Jason Korsner
So what's all the fuss about? Is it, as some people have suggested, two hours of relentless, blood-soaked violence, vilifying the Jews, while relieving the ruthless Roman governor of any responsibility? In a word, yes. But it's much more than that. It's also boring. While it's visually impressive and certainly bursts with passion, it lacks any sign of the dramatic narrative necessary to make a compelling film.
Any director making a bio-pic must first decide which part of his subject’s story to tell. Mel Gibson has chosen the final twelve hours of Jesus's life, from moments before his arrest to moments after his death. From the moment he limited his film to this period, The Passion of the Christ could do no more than reinforce already held beliefs and would have no chance of winning over any new believers. There is nothing inspirational in watching a man suffer, without understanding who he is and why he is suffering. Perhaps that was Gibson's intention, to make us suffer with Jesus and share first his pain and with his death, his relief.
Whether you're a believer or not, the life of Jesus is a compelling story - a baby, born to a virgin bride, growing up in poverty, and against all odds, making something of himself as an adult, teaching, healing, inspiring and otherwise bettering the lives of all those around him until he’s betrayed by one of his closest friends and suffers a brutal death, rather than lose his dignity. So why ignore the all of this and give us, instead of the life of Jesus, the death of Jesus - two hours of pain, suffering, bleeding, screaming and crying? And to what end? What do we learn? Flogging hurts. Crucifixion kills you. Your mother won’t want you to suffer. We don’t need to sit through two hours of graphic blood-letting to learn this.
One or two brief flashbacks aside, there is nothing in this film to tell us what was so special about Jesus. We see him building a table, washing someone's feet, breaking bread with his friends. On one or two occasions, we hear the briefest of excerpts of his teachings, but nothing to suggest that this man was great enough to justify spawning a religion that would hold him up as the saviour of mankind. For all we know, from what we see here, this man could be just like any other crank who claims to be the Messiah - maybe if David Icke had live two thousand years earlier, he would also have been crucified for blasphemy. And maybe we would now have been told that he too was the Messiah.
If it weren't for the fact that this is based on the bible, one might argue that the story is incoherent and confused.
On the one hand, according to Gibson, the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, is a meek, insecure leader who doesn’t like to cause a fuss. He is so keen to persuade the baying crowd of Hebrews to change their mind about demanding Jesus's crucifixion that he offers them the choice of sparing either him or Barabbas, a vicious murderer, portrayed here as an odious, growling giant who wouldn’t be out of place in a comic-book. In a work of fiction, that they choose the latter would unquestionably be anti-semitic. That Gibson sources his story to the Bible excuses him of this, unless you are prepared to accept that the New Testament itself is anti-semitic.
But for someone who is apparently desperate to avoid executing Jesus, Pilate fails to invite anyone to speak on his behalf at the sham of a trial he is given. And more seriously, he fails to supervise his brutal, sadistic soldiers as they mete out the cruellest punishment imaginable on a man whose only crime was, in the eyes of Gibson, to speak the truth. But as Pilate’s own wife asks him, 'What is the truth? Do you recognise it when it is spoken?' Nothing in this film helps us recognise what Jesus says as the truth, unless we believe it already, before we enter the cinema. Not only does Pilate fail to stop Jesus being flogged to within an inch of his death, but he allows the guards to continue whipping him as he struggles up the hill with his cross. He is either disingenuous or a totally ineffective and disrespected leader. The inhumanity with which the out-of-control Romans treat Jesus is in direct contradiction to 'the party line' but Pilate doesn’t stop it. So who is to blame for Jesus’ suffering? 'It is he who delivered me to you who has the greater sin' Jesus tells Pilate, allowing him to proclaim to the crowd that 'I am innocent of this man’s blood.'
Privately, Pilate appears to be struggling to decide how to handle what is in effect a political dispute between a fundamentalist religious leader and the head of a growing religious cult. If he really wanted to avoid bloodshed, would he not have encouraged negotiations? And in any sense, you only have to look at the modern world to see that established religious leaders tend to win out over the leaders of controversial splinter groups – in a previous millennium, crucifixion might also have been the fate for the founders of the Scientologists or the Moonies.
Although Pilate's doubts seem spurious, at least Gibson makes some effort to show that he is not comfortable with the decision he ultimately feels compelled to take. But Gibson's Jewish high priest, Caiphas - along with the sadistic soldiers, the only true baddie in this film - is inexplicably and unshakeably certain that crucifixion is the only acceptable outcome. Having failed to give any suggestion as to how much of a threat Jesus's teachings were presenting to the Jewish establishment, this makes the hate-filled Caiphas seem as mindlessly callous as Saddam Hussein. The film just starts too late to put his behaviour into any kind of perspective.
But does this make the film anti-semitic? No more than objecting to the war against Iraq makes you anti-American. Almost everyone in the country at the time would have been Jewish, and clearly, many of them opposed the crucifixion. But while not tainting the Jewish population as a whole, the film certainly lays the blame for the death of Jesus at the hands of the Jewish establishment. Gibson clearly believes that the moral responsibility lies with the High Priests, cheered on by fundamentalist rabble rousers. We have to wait until Jesus's final cross-carrying journey to see the silent majority - screaming abuse at the Romans and helping to ease Jesus's discomfort where they could. But one also suspects that Gibson's view is that these caring, sensitive, loving Jews are the ones who later converted to follow Christ's teachings.
But if there is any doubt about the coherence of the behaviour of Pilate or Caiphas, it could be argued that Jesus's own position seemed equally incoherent. During the course of his final hours on Earth, he asks God to 'Save me from the traps they set for me,' 'Shelter me Lord,' 'Forgive them. They know now what they do' and wonders 'Why have you forsaken me?' All of which suggest that this was a man who believed he was being wronged and was suffering an unjustifiable fate. It was if he didn’t want to suffer. As if he wanted the pain to stop. But when had the chance to stop it, asked if he really was the Messiah and given the opportunity to change his story, he honourably - or some might say stubbornly - sticks by his story. But he had to suffer in order to fulfil his purpose on Earth, and he knew that. At the last supper, he boasts to his disciples that he’s going somewhere they can’t follow and accepts his fate. He came to Earth to give his life to save mankind, didn't he? He had known this was his fate for some years, so is he really being forsaken? Does he really want to be saved from the traps? Is what the Romans are doing something for which they should be forgiven, or thanked? After all, had he not suffered and died, would he still have been praised as the Lord?
But theology aside, this film is an unsatisfying and uncomfortable ride. Just when you think the man can suffer no more, there's something else. More whipping. More beating. More falling and being crushed under the weight of his cross. No man could have suffered such abuse and still found the strength to climb the hill, let alone with a cross on his back. But that is presumably Gibson's intention, trying to highlight just how unfairly treated Jesus was. But it's as if this kind of treatment might have been acceptable had the victim not been the Messiah. That said, the thieves crucified with him weren't touched by the Romans as they marched to their fate. They carried just the horizontal bar of their crosses, rather than the whole thing, and they arrived at the site of their accepted demise without a single blemish on their bodies. So why did the Romans treat Jesus worse than an animal? What had he done to them? The other men were being crucified for breaching Roman law. Jesus was being crucified, supposedly against the wishes of the Romans, for blaspheming against the Jewish God. Blasphemy was nothing to the pagan Romans.
From a cinematic point of view, the biggest problem is the fact that telling only the final twelve hours means there is actually no story here at all. There’s no character development. All the righteous characters stay righteous and all the cruel ones remain cruel. Only, in the briefest of storylines, do any characters seem to grow. Judas realises the error of his ways. And Simon, who initially refuses to help Jesus carry his cross, soon forms a deep bond with him and doesn't want to leave him when he reaches his final destination.
So with no story, no development in any of the key characters and none of the background to teach outsiders what made Jesus so revered, what is the point of film? It's nothing but sadistic voyeurism, an excuse for a relentlessly violent polemic on the ill-treatment of a man whose fate was sealed - and accepted - long before the start of the film.
(c) Jason Korsner - 9 April 04
The Passion - reviewed by John Park
The Passion of The Christ follows the last hours of Jesus, from his arrest to his resurrection from the dead. It depicts events as described in the four Gospels of the New Testament. Catholics believe that Jesus is God, and that we killed him. One of the resulting questions is: who is 'we'?
May I explain my background? I am a catholic - a fairly louche example - brought up in London just after the Second World War, and born in the year Israel was made a state by the United Nations. My parents were a catholic and Protestant. I went to catholic schools. For most of my life I've not been a catholic, but returned to the church a few years ago.
I was never taught, by nuns, priests, teachers or anyone connected with the catholic church - ever - that the Jews killed Jesus. We were always told that 'we' killed him, meaning everyone in the world, at the time of his death and since, by doing wrong - and that he forgave us. As an adult I've worked in several countries as an architect, including Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war. My relevant political views are pro-Jewish, pro-Palestian, anti-invasion of Iraq.
That's my relevant background, now for The Passion. In each catholic church there is a set of tableaux depicting the last hours in the life of Christ, known as Stations of the Cross. The second part of The Passion is structured around these. The Stations are an important part of catholic religious observance. During Lent people walk round the sequence, stopping to pray and think at each picture. In the film, they form set pieces which will be immediately significant to catholic viewers, though not perhaps to others. It's an important distinction, because The Passion is not assembled like a conventional film, with dramatic structure, beginning middle and end.
I've had the benefit of many Jewish friends and a lover or two, and don't believe 'the Jews' killed Christ, so I didn't go into the film looking for that angle. Nor did I find it. The way I understand the death of Christ is that a group of senior priests took against him and made sure the Romans executed him - exactly as shown in the film. The priests were Jews, Jesus was a Jew, everyone was a Jew. If it had all happened in Yorkshire, the priests would have been Yorkshiremen, but the White Rose county wouldn't have killed Christ - just his fellow human beings.
Director Mel Gibson shows a fair and carefully considered touch with this, as disgusted fellow-elders to the high priests Annas and Caiphas decry the midnight temple trial of Jesus (shouting 'A travesty!'), and numerous small acts of kindness and regret are shown to Christ by his fellow human-beings (Jews).
The Passion follows the narrative and dialogue (with a few extra but very small scenes) of the New Testament. Catholics believe the relevant books (gospels) by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John (followers of Christ) to be written under God's guidance. I found it accurate to a script I've absorbed since childhood, and the Devil quite remarkable.
Ah, the Devil. God's most delightful creation (so the story goes) was Lucifer, who he called Sun of The Morning. But Lucifer wanted to be greater than God, so Hell was created for him, and he was turned into a serpent, to be crushed underfoot (almost the first action of Jesus in The Passion). But God and the Devil aren't men or women, they're beyond our imagination - so can take any shape we imagine. The Passion uses this licence to show Satan as the most demonic (and chillingly sexy) of humans - and quite emphatically a woman. It's a subtle portrayal by an outstanding actor. Better, the character is minimally intercut into each of the key scenes, giving them a fine balance with the supernatural, but keeping the realm strictly human.
As a catholic, I found The Passion a strong visual experience. Like many people, I like reading, but find it doesn't bring scenes to full visual life. Though I've been familiar with the bible story since childhood, it's not until seeing this particular film - much better in my opinion than previous attempts - that I've felt close to the three-dimensional action.
There's a great deal of torture in the film (and in the book) - it's an exceptionally unpleasant story. But from the catholic perspective, it's dwarfed by the enormity of the crime - humans killing God. And the whole is dwarfed by that same God's forgiveness - stated repeatedly in the film - which gives the giant frame to wrap around this giant story.
From a personal viewpoint, I found the film well-constructed, atmospherically shot and carefully designed. There are some subtly-understated vignettes, well-handled in the film - in particular those of Peter, John, Mary Magdalene, Pilate's wife Claudia, the soldier whose cut ear is restored (who reappears at the Crucifixion), the Good Thief, Roman soldier at the Crucifixion. The major role of Mary (mother of Jesus) is stuctured (and acted) with a fine understanding of its emotional impact; of Jesus with care and, in flashbacks, humour; of Pilate with integrity and unease. There's also, as light relief, the most gloriously camp King Herod.
John Park - 9 April 04
All reviews / Thursday 8 April 04 / UGC Cinema Haymarket / London
The Passion - reviewed by Cecilia Holmes
End of reviews / Notes and Credits follow: