St Luke's Church Eccleshill - Articles from "The Link"

The Passion of the Christ

At the time of writing this magazine, I (the vicar) haven't seen Mel Gibson's Movie. So here are some comments from one who has: the Bishop of Durham, Dr Tom Wright.

Among many things that could and perhaps should be said about the film, the following stand out to me: two positives, three negatives.

I think it's a very good thing that suddenly everyone in the western world seems to be talking about Jesus. No doubt some of the talk is misleading but I'd much rather have people talking about him than forgetting him.
It's a very good thing (though, alas, overdone; see below) that the film reminds us all just how horrible ancient torture and crucifixion was, and that this, rather than some sentimental and languid death, was what Jesus underwent. The idea of the cross as a piece of jewellery should receive a nasty shock from this. What Christians believe is that God himself underwent all that.
The first problem, though, is that most viewers who don't themselves hold Christian belief - which means most people in the UK at least - will not see why, from this film, they should do so. Apart from the very brief opening quote from Isaiah 63, and the brief flashback to the Last Supper (which people not knowing the story might not understand), there is nothing in the whole film to explain why anyone should say 'he did this for me', let alone 'he did this for the world'. How, in other words, does all this suffering work in some saving sense? At this point I become anxious: are we, perhaps, supposed to think that the sheer quantity of suffering is what counts? Or are we simply being invited, as with the worst kinds of mediaeval spirituality, to wallow in the sheer nastiness, the detail of the cat-o'nine-tails, etc., as though doing so will be spiritually beneficial?
The torture, in fact, is grossly overdone. Not in the sense that the Romans didn't do that kind of thing; they did. But (a) nobody could have stood up after what is depicted, let alone held a conversation, let alone carried a cross; (b) the torture is so long-drawn-out that when we reach the cross, which should be the climax of both the film and the torture, it's actually an anticlimax. That must be grossly wrong. The earliest writers about Jesus' death, not least Paul, talk a lot about the cross and never mention the flogging. Why has Gibson chosen to push in the opposite direction? The result is a film which, while many devout people will say 'He loved me and gave himself for me', will make many others come away with merely nightmarish memories, something no evangelist should want.
I like the attempt at historical reality by getting actors to speak Aramaic and Latin. It isn't always as good as it might be, but it avoids the problem of having American or British accents! But what a shame, having gone to all that trouble, to get it so wrong as to have Jesus (and other Jews) speaking Latin to Pilate and other Romans. They would certainly have spoken Greek, which was the main common language of the time. If Mel Gibson was so concerned for sticking close to the text and getting the history right, it is absurd that nobody spotted that the 'title' on the cross ('Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews') was in Hebrew, Greek and Latin; in the film it's only in Hebrew and Latin. There are plenty of other historical details, too, which went astray; surely with a budget like Gibson's he could have hired one or two good consultants? This problem sits uncomfortably with Gibson's preoccupation with standard Catholic (but not biblical) tradition: for instance Veronica and her cloth, which likewise come across as very stilted and forced.

All in all I'm glad that people are talking about Jesus. And I'm glad that something of the reality of the cross is in the public eye. The fact that the living God came to share and bear the worst that the world can do remains shocking, and shockingly good news. But I wish it could have been done better.

Oh, and a tailpiece: the final resurrection scene is very odd, almost laughably so. Much better is Channel 4 on Easter Monday!

+Tom Wright, March 2004.

Further thoughts by John Hartley

	*St Luke's Church, Eccleshill - The Link* magazine** The Link is published monthly at 40p (Senior Citizens 35p), and we deliver free within the parish and post copies (at the reader's expense) to those who request it. Please contact us if you would like a free copy for a trial period. May 2004, Page 1.
Home Page. Index of articles: by subject, by date. In this issue: (May 2004) 'Passion' film, Univ Chaplain, Chorltons, Narthex Heat.	The Passion of the Christ At the time of writing this magazine, I (the vicar) haven't seen Mel Gibson's Movie. So here are some comments from one who has: the Bishop of Durham, Dr Tom Wright. Among many things that could and perhaps should be said about the film, the following stand out to me: two positives, three negatives. I think it's a very good thing that suddenly everyone in the western world seems to be talking about Jesus. No doubt some of the talk is misleading but I'd much rather have people talking about him than forgetting him. It's a very good thing (though, alas, overdone; see below) that the film reminds us all just how horrible ancient torture and crucifixion was, and that this, rather than some sentimental and languid death, was what Jesus underwent. The idea of the cross as a piece of jewellery should receive a nasty shock from this. What Christians believe is that God himself underwent all that. The first problem, though, is that most viewers who don't themselves hold Christian belief - which means most people in the UK at least - will not see why, from this film, they should do so. Apart from the very brief opening quote from Isaiah 63, and the brief flashback to the Last Supper (which people not knowing the story might not understand), there is nothing in the whole film to explain why anyone should say 'he did this for me', let alone 'he did this for the world'. How, in other words, does all this suffering work in some saving sense? At this point I become anxious: are we, perhaps, supposed to think that the sheer quantity of suffering is what counts? Or are we simply being invited, as with the worst kinds of mediaeval spirituality, to wallow in the sheer nastiness, the detail of the cat-o'nine-tails, etc., as though doing so will be spiritually beneficial? The torture, in fact, is grossly overdone. Not in the sense that the Romans didn't do that kind of thing; they did. But (a) nobody could have stood up after what is depicted, let alone held a conversation, let alone carried a cross; (b) the torture is so long-drawn-out that when we reach the cross, which should be the climax of both the film and the torture, it's actually an anticlimax. That must be grossly wrong. The earliest writers about Jesus' death, not least Paul, talk a lot about the cross and never mention the flogging. Why has Gibson chosen to push in the opposite direction? The result is a film which, while many devout people will say 'He loved me and gave himself for me', will make many others come away with merely nightmarish memories, something no evangelist should want. I like the attempt at historical reality by getting actors to speak Aramaic and Latin. It isn't always as good as it might be, but it avoids the problem of having American or British accents! But what a shame, having gone to all that trouble, to get it so wrong as to have Jesus (and other Jews) speaking Latin to Pilate and other Romans. They would certainly have spoken Greek, which was the main common language of the time. If Mel Gibson was so concerned for sticking close to the text and getting the history right, it is absurd that nobody spotted that the 'title' on the cross ('Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews') was in Hebrew, Greek and Latin; in the film it's only in Hebrew and Latin. There are plenty of other historical details, too, which went astray; surely with a budget like Gibson's he could have hired one or two good consultants? This problem sits uncomfortably with Gibson's preoccupation with standard Catholic (but not biblical) tradition: for instance Veronica and her cloth, which likewise come across as very stilted and forced. All in all I'm glad that people are talking about Jesus. And I'm glad that something of the reality of the cross is in the public eye. The fact that the living God came to share and bear the worst that the world can do remains shocking, and shockingly good news. But I wish it could have been done better. Oh, and a tailpiece: the final resurrection scene is very odd, almost laughably so. Much better is Channel 4 on Easter Monday! +Tom Wright, March 2004. Further thoughts by John Hartley
Top of page.	This web page was last updated on 1st May 2004.