Mel Gibson is a fine film director. The Academy and at least several other film fans and theorists would probably agree with me. Braveheart is my favourite film of all time. It is a compelling story of an individual who takes courage against all odds and has faith in himself to do the right thing. It is also an extremely violent film. With that in mind, The Passion of the Christ appears to be a similar movie to Braveheart on many levels. Is it any coincidence that William Wallace must endure a torturous execution just as Christ must in The Passion? Mel Gibson enjoys this type of character/story, and I argue that he does it well. However, unlike my adoration of Braveheart, I have no current desire to see The Passion.
Despite my undying worship of Gibson’s mullet-wearing, blood-spilling 1995 hero, I do not wish to see this comparable tale of self-sacrifice. After I read extensive reviews of The Passion and talked about the film with several veterans of The Passion experience, I became more and more apprehensive about seeing the movie in all its big-screen magnificence. I have no wish to see legs breaking; eyes eaten out by crows; and demonic visions. I just don’t. I do not wish to see the extreme violence in The Passion.
Perhaps I should add one more disclaimer to this decision. When Braveheart was first released, I felt the same way about that film. I had no desire to see hands hacked off; eyes stabbed; and throats slit. Several years after Braveheart’s release, I actually watched the film at a friend’s home. Perhaps the laid-back and relaxed atmosphere made it easier to watch the film? Perhaps I was in a violent mood at the time? For whatever reason, I watched the film, and I loved it. I still love it. Somehow, my reluctance to see the violence of the movie faded away, and I enjoyed Braveheart.
Perhaps someday, I will have the same experience with The Passion. However for now, why would I put myself through the anxiety and anticipation of the imagery? Would it be to see if the film is really as bad as people say? Would it be to witness the aesthetics of the film over and above the gore? These might all serve as valid reasons; but they are not important reasons to me right now. This is my choice, and I must say that I respect this choice when it is made by others. I can only hope that others will respect my choice now.
An interesting element in my decision to not see The Passion of the Christ is that I am a follower of Christ. I love Christ dearly, and I strive to learn more about Him and follow His teachings. There has been an unfortunate crusade (yes, I will use this word fully aware of its meaning) to present this film as a second revelation of Scripture. People talk about how this film transformed them, and how it is such a powerful depiction of the Christ story that it could change anyone who sees it. Maybe it is these things. However, it is still just a film. It is still a group of actors reading a script; a series of petroleum and digital-based special effects; and a series of camera angles compiled into several reels of 35mm film. Movies are powerful visualizations of stories that contain life-changing truths, but this only comes through a person’s interpretation and reception of a film. The film itself does not contain these things.
There is an extraordinary amount of subtle pressure for Christ-followers to see The Passion and take their friends to see it. Perhaps one day, I will do this; but for now, I will not. I simply do not want to see the violence that Gibson has chosen to include in the film, and I do not feel that my faith will become any lesser if I refuse to see The Passion. Perhaps I missed the portion of Scripture that says “Thou shalt pay thine $12 Canadian dollars to see thine saviour’s back flogged.”
A few people have argued that as a Christian, I should understand the severity of the Crucifixion, and that Gibson’s depiction is simply “how terrible it would have been.” Therefore, I should see the film. I have two responses to that. Firstly, I need to understand how people are executed and tortured in Third World countries, but I do not think I have to see it in order to understand it. Secondly, Gibson’s depiction of the Crucifixion is not THE image of the Crucifixion. THE image of the Crucifixion came and went almost 2000 years ago. Gibson’s depiction is an imitation; a reproduction based on archaeological evidence and academic conjecture. The framing, colouring, movement, and expressions of the scene are products of Gibson’s creative imagination and the equipment involved. What you see is not a completely accurate image of the Crucifixion. The audience sees a creative portrait; an imagining of the Crucifixion. Again, I do not believe that someone must see something as brutal as the Crucifixion in its entirety in order to understand the trial that Christ endured. A simple description seems to cause enough sphincter-tightening to get the point across.
Ultimately, The Passion of the Christ is a film. This means that it only holds so much aesthetic value and importance as the viewer gleans from it. It could very well be a fantastic film; however, at this current moment in time, I have no wish to see its violence in order to enjoy its subject material.
