[Frederica-l] some thoughts on "The Passion"

[Frederica at aol.com]

I haven't written a review of "The Passion" because my feelings are so mixed. 
I am so glad for all the people who are having their faith strengthened and 
renewed, or even finding faith for the first time. I don't want to puncture 
that. A friend at my church saw it once, wanted to see it a second time, then 
read a negative review ("the characters were flat", etc). She decided not to see 
it again. That's sad.

When people get disappointed with the film I think it has to do with what 
Coleridge called the "willing suspension of disbelief." What people are 
enthralled by is the Lord Jesus Christ. When their enthusiasm begins to dip is when the 
notice that the movie is not him, himself, in person, but a movie about him. 
But of course it is the Lord himself that our faith is in, and the movie is a 
tool; if we expect it to be perfect, we're putting our faith in the wrong 
place. 

Where there's some confusion on this point is that Mel Gibson has repeatedly 
said that his aim was a movie that is utterly faithful to the Scriptures. 
People expected almost a newsreel quality. But it turns out what he meant was to 
be utterly faithful to his artistic vision of the Gospels. So we have to change 
our initial expectation; instead of thinking of it as a Gospel newsreel, we 
must liken the movie to the works of Michelangelo and other greater or lesser 
artists to the centuries who have offered their view of the Gospel. 

The most exciting thing about the movie for me is the depth of Gibson's 
commitment to Christ. His faith is real and gripping. It moves him deeply and it 
moves us too. Real vibrant faith--not the calculated kind we usually see--is 
contagious. 

But I was disappointed that he didn't take more care with the material. Even 
granting that he did not intend to restrict himself to the Gospels, the 
material he does use is too often simply inaccurate. Numerous examples could be 
given, but I'll start with Mary Magdalene. Now, there aren't that many women in 
the Gospels, so they should not be too hard to tell apart. Mary Magdalene is a 
woman named Mary from the city of Magdala on the sea of Galilee. She is one of 
the women who followed Jesus and helped support his mission financially, so 
she may ahve been well-off. She was exorcised of seven demons. That's all we 
know about her history. There's no reason to think she was a prostitute or 
notable sinner of any type.

She is not Mary of Bethany (a city south of Jerusalem), the sister of Martha 
and Lazarus, who anointed Jesus' head. She is not the prostitute who anointed 
Jesus' feet and wiped them with her hair. These two understandably get 
confused, and historically in the West all three women are lumped together under Mary 
Magdalene's name, a confusion continued in the "Last Temptation of Christ," 
"The DaVinci Code," and other works. 

So I was mighty confused when, in the movie, Mary Magdalene is looking at 
Christ on the Cross and begins remembering the incident with the woman taken in 
adultery in John 8. Now, this is an interesting passage to scholars because it 
clearly does not belong in this place in the story. It breaks into the middle 
of something else that's going on in John. In fact, it doesn't sound like John 
at all; both in writing style and in content it sounds more like Luke. But no 
early text has ever been found that does not include this story at this 
point. One of those tantalizing mysteries of biblical scholarship. No one doubts 
that the story is true. 

So I wondered why she'd remember this; maybe Gibson believes she was one of 
the onlookers. Gradually it dawned that Gibson thought she *was* the adulterous 
woman. This is an entirely different fourth woman, and to add her to the mix 
is to add a whole new layer of confusion to an already bad situation. Instead 
of advancing the cause of Scriptural understanding, it sets it back. This is 
just carelessness. It's as if you made a movie of Gone with the Wind and 
combined Scarlett, Melanie, and Scarlett's sisters into one character. 

Those were the stages of my disappointment--from realizing that it wasn't 
going to be strictly accurate to the Scriptures, and re-setting my expectation 
for a careful handling of the Scriptures through the eyes of an artist; and then 
realizing that the Scriptures were not going to be handled carefully. 

Another example, I just read a quote where Gibson was asked about the dead 
donkey when Judas hanged himself. He said that the scripture says Judas "went 
out and hanged himself with a halter" (Matthew 27:5) and asked himself, "wehre 
am I going to get a halter?" and came up with the donkey. Now if you have 
reasonable familiarity with the Gospels you immediately went "with a halter?" 
because that's not in the bible. A striking visual like that would stay in memory. 
But it isn't there; I looked it up in the Greek just to make sure. This 
undermines my trust in his familiarity with the Scriptures.

Many Christians in the liturgical traditions (Orthodox, Catholic, some 
Anglican and Lutheran) stop at noon to pray and remember the Crucifixion. This is a 
very ancient practice. After decades of doing this, you come to associate the 
particular brutal noonday light with that event; the paradox of so much 
flooding light and shadowlessness, motionlessness, with that moment of both triumph 
and agony. So when they're climbing to Calvary and the shadows are long, and 
warm afternoon sun is playing on everyone's faces, it was another moment of 
confusion for me. How could he just ignore a Scripture that is not just a matter 
of words on a page, but that so many faithful "know in their bones" because we 
relive it every day? It was jarring so see the Crucifixion shadow-lit, and as 
a resutl felt obviously untrue. 

Anyway little things like this contributed to my being unable to believe that 
this was the real story. But I still valued it as I would any other artwork 
by a believer. Even Michelangelo could make a mistake, as when he put horns on 
Moses because of a bad translation. I remain grateful for the depth and 
vitality of Gibson's faith and appreciate the energy he put into this film.


********
Frederica Mathewes-Green
www.frederica.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://gromit.ctcnet.net/pipermail/frederica-l/attachments/20040308/783cc1dc/attachment-0001.htm