Over Afternoon Tea

Tea is not only a drink but a ritual over which people have been relaxing, talking, and catching up on each other's lives for centuries. This blog is intended to serve as a virtual cup of tea, helping me keep in touch with friends and family in my physical absence.

The Passion of the Christ

I went to see this movie when it opened on Wednesday, and it's worth commenting about. I have a number of things to say about it, which are rather random and disconnected. Sorry. My comments are, as follows:

1) It's getting weird, how normal it is to me to comprehend things spoken in foreign and, in fact, rather dead languages. I could make out a lot of the Latin, though I needed the translations for longer, and especially more rapid, speeches. The ecclesial pronunciation was a challenge but as long as there weren't too many "c"s I was fine. It still throws me for a loop to hear them pronounced "ch." This makes me hopeful that I could develop my spoken Latin, given a chance. Which is exciting.

2) The movie was made, to all appearances, with a great deal of Roman Catholic piety. This is good, because it was clearly made with piety, but presents a bit of a challenge to the non-RC group of viewers. However, if you don't mind a few extra-Scriptural (but not anti-Scriptural) items drawn from the Stations of the Cross, and one or two from Gibson's own imagination, you're fine.

3) Overall, I really liked it. It was a well-made movie--despite the fact that I "know" the story of the Passion, as did pretty much everyone who went to see it that night, the dramatic tension never let up. I think it succeeded as a movie. But I think it was good not just in the sense of succeeding at the cinematic art. As my husband has noted many times, watching movies does tend to be spiritually damaging. I found this movie rather uplifting. It helped to still my heart, which is always good. Further, I liked what Gibson did with Mary, the mother of Jesus. She spoke a total of perhaps 12 words in the movie, but she was a major character. In watching her suffer we all suffered. Cinematically, focusing on her also gave some relief from the gore--you can only endure so much of it, and modern audiences are fairly inured to blood anyway.

4) I also feel inclined to say something about the primary objections to it I've heard. The first is that it's gory. Yes, it is. Probably not a good idea to take small children to see it. However, it's less gory than a lot of other movies out there, and it's considerably less gory than the real Crucifixion would have been, if the things I've heard about Roman methods of punishment are accurate. Does this mean you need to go see it? No. If you've spared yourself seeing bloody or violent movies, you may want to stick with that. This is one of the few R-rated movies I've seen; I feel that there are times when blood is appropriate--i.e., when real blood was shed and it's simply being recreated on the movie screen. But that's a personal opinion and preference.
The second major objection I've heard is that the Resurrection scene is so small. This is true; it's tiny. Not only small but, in striking contrast to the rest of the movie, somewhat badly done. Jesus is naked and the camera is not quite sensitive enough to that, in my opinion. According to everything I've heard from Orthodox hymnology, the scene is also inaccurate because the stone rolls away DURING the Resurrection, not later, when the Myrrh-bearers come. However, it's important to remember 2 things: 1) the movie is titled the Passion, not the Resurrection. If you want to argue that the movie should have been about the Passion AND the Resurrection and the ministry of Christ, that's fine. But that's not what the director intended. 2) The movie is unabashedly Roman Catholic. I don't agree with all of the things Gibson included, especially in that brief Resurrection scene. If I'd been making the movie, I would've made it about the Resurrection as well; as an Orthodox, that's an important area of emphasis to me. Roman Catholics tend to focus more on the Passion. I disagree with them on this but I think that's a fault of the director's faith or even of much of the West rather than specifically a flaw in the movie.
The third objection I've heard is that Orthodox iconography always depicts Christ as peaceful, serene, and fairly clear of blood, and the Gospels are silent on the details of the Crucifixion--in other words, that Orthodox depictions are not gory or emotional. This is true. But in the first place, again, Gibson is Roman Catholic. That's his take. I think he's wrong, but it's his movie. In the second place, remember that the Gospels were written for an audience that still knew what crucifixion was; if they hadn't seen one themselves they had probably heard about it from someone else. Crucifixions were extremely public since a lot of their goal was deterrence. People in the Apostolic age didn't need a detailed account. As for Icons, it is fitting that they be as they are. They are for devotional use. This movie is not a devotion. I wouldn't suggest watching it every day, or even hanging a poster in your house where you'll see it every day as you would an Icon of the Crucifixion. But every now and then, I don't think it's a bad idea to be reminded to some degree of what it must have been like. And Lent is probably good timing.

In conclusion, sorry I haven't blogged much lately. Life is insanely busy and will continue to be so through next week, but after that I should be back.