My Two Cents
Yes, I actually saw the film recently. The following are some thoughts on the film itself, and some further thoughts on the reactions it has elicited from different corners (including some Orthodox commentators.)
- Yes, the film is not simply very violent, but incredibly graphic
- On the other hand, based on the Gospels, Prophetic Scriptures,, the Church's iconography, and other traditions (not to mention the Holy Shroud, which is currently in the possession of the Latins, but once was kept in Hagia Sophia), what was shown in the film was with little doubt on the "level" of what our blessed Lord was subjected to by evil men.
As far as I can tell, save for things which obviously are artistic liberties, I didn't see anything in this film that was actually "false". Some belly aching has been made by Orthodox commentators on the use of Latin by the Romans ("it was Greek I tell you!") - which while not an entirely bad critique, is itself not entirely accurate either; the Romans most certainly spoke Latin at this time, and it's known this was the language of government officials and the upper classes in particular. So at most, it's only partially "off" (perhaps the grunt soldiers should have spoken Greek amongst themselves?) In the end, either way, it's an inconsequential issue, one which neither detracts or adds to one's ability to appreciate this film.
One strong point about the film, is that it clearly portrays Christ's feat as being a contest against the powers of evil - both the sin of mankind, but also the devil. The devil (with a great deal of artistic licence) is made a very explicit character in this film, continually trying to discourage the Lord, mock Him, or appearing to take some pleasure in what he (falsely) perceives to be Christ's defeat.
Visually the film is stunning - it has a very real, textured feel, quite unlike the old "Hollywood Biblical Epics" or the old epic films in general, which tend to have a very sanitized, "staged" feeling to them. It's obvious great pains were taken by the costume department, whether it be for the Temple guards, the Roman soldiers, the Jewish priests, etc.
Refreshingly, the film did not have an overt political/revisionistic agenda. The film has been wrongly called "anti-semitic" for this reason - no effort is made to make the Jews come off any better or worse than they do in the Scriptures, and the same is true of the Romans (particularly Pontius Pilate.) Like in the New Testament, Pilate is a reluctant figure; a brute, but obviously very disturbed by the obvious innocence of the Man they (the Jews) have put in front of him for judgement. As the Gospels indicate, Pilate's wife was a secret follower of Christ, and is shown pleading on the Lord's behalf. Things like this, get under the skin of paranoid Jews and liberals who wish to dictate just what is or is not true in the Scriptures - I suppose it is better to demean our memory of Pontius Pliate (which was never stunning in the first place) than that of the fiend Caiaphas (who was part of a temple elite which even contemporary Jewish sources like Josephus couldn't stand and knew to be crooked and self interested.)
Mel Gibson was correct, when he said in his recent interview with Diane Sawyer (who looked like she was sucking a lemon through the whole thing) that it is not this film which the harshest critics of "The Passion" have the biggest problem - it is with the Gospels themselves (and if you follow their critiques, this actually is plainly stated.)
The film also portrayed events in a way which I think is more or less "Orthodox friendly" (though obviously in same measure they are "Roman Catholic friendly" as well) - the Blessed Virgin has a large role in the story, a very "un-Protestant" emphasis made upon not only her relationship to our Lord, but also to the disciples in general - when Sts.Peter and John are portrayed speaking to her, even they refer to her as "Mother." The same sort of "catholic-ish" interpretation can be seen in the "flash back" sequence of the Last Supper (and the institution of the Eucharist) which splices back and forth with the Crucifixion.
The performances in the film are strong, in so far as they are all that they need to be; save for a few characters, everyone else in this story has more a "function" to play in telling the tale, than an actual "role."
Many have criticized the film for it's lack of balance - it focuses very much upon Christ's sufferings, but with little appeal to His sermons, previous events in His sacred life, and with little emphasis upon the Ressurection. These critiques can be looked at in two ways.
1) One take, is to say "well, DUH, it's called the Passion". There is a lot of merit to that response, since it's not as if the film is not keeping with it's intent and purpose. It is what it is - a portrayal of the last twelve hours of Christ's earthly life before His death.
2) On the other hand, perhaps the very idea of a film JUST about the Passion is the problem. "Yes the film basically succeeds in it's stated goal, but that stated goal is problematic." There is some merit to this too. While I do not agree with this criticism (though personally, I would have liked a perhaps longer film that was more a "life of Christ" even better than the film we got...if I could sit through 3 hours plus of Lord of the Rings, I could certainly sit through a far more edifying story), I do think it is a valid critique to say that more context was needed in the film to explain it's main plot (the story of Christ's sufferings leading up to the Cross.) The film had many excellent examples of "flash back" sequences to previous events in Christ's life - I think it would have made for a stronger film, had there been far more of these, and for their duration to be more significant. Without such things, it's very easy to conclude that this film is in large measure for the "already converted" (preaching to the choir), taking for granted that most westerners in our post-Christian age (particularly young people) actually know the basic outline of the "life of Christ", which I can assure you is not a safe assumption at all.
The criticism I saw posted here from the Paradosis list was as annoying as it was libelous - the actual errors of Papism are bad enough in themselves, without being cartooned and exagerated.
Would this be the film a well grounded Orthodox writer/director make? I sincerely doubt it. I will be careful though in saying WHY I think this...
It is not because vividly portraying the Passion is per se wrong. Rather it is a question of context. The ultimate problem with Latin meditation upon and portrayal of the Passion of the Lord is not the details, as much as it's divorce from context. You don't need to go to an old Spanish RC church to find images of a suffering Christ:
Obviously, one need only mention the Holy Week services to further illustrate this point.
OTOH, I think it can be rightly said you're less likely (not without exception, obviously) to find similar emphasis put upon other aspects of Christ's mission. I cannot recall, at least in contemporary Latin edifaces (or those of the last several hundred years) anything remotely similar to say, the common portrayal of Christ Pantokrator that you'll find in all Orthodox Churches.
To be fair to this new film, it most certainly ends with the Ressurection - it is a very short scene, but I think it could be argued that, given what the film is, it serves the purpose. IOW, it ends on a very hopeful, upbeat note.
Is it the "perfect film"? No, even given it's stated goals, there are things that I think could have been added which would have enhanced it tremendously. Is it a very good film? Definately. Is it better than anything else out there right now? Without a doubt. It's been no end of amusement/sadness for me, that this film has been subjected to the amount of criticism it has been, when most of what passes for entertainment now days is undoubtedly ruinous to family, morality, and round aboutly, the peace and well being of our civilization - and of course, said garbage will be released without similar cries of obnoxious/feigned moral outrage.
As a parting thought, vis-a-vis the explicit nature of this film's violence, I have a theory on this (and I believe it is one alluded to by it's director as well). While it is true that a case can be made for it in so far as it "probably happened this way", I don't think this is the whole story. I think a lot of this had to do with a need to move "joe-average" out of his complacency - something less uncomfortable than this, perhaps, would not have had that effect. Unfortunately, I'm inclined to agree.
Seraphim
); but it must be said in truth, that this emphasis became much more so after Rome's separation from the Eastern Patriarchats. You see this in the begining of such phenomenon as the "stigmata", the development of more graphic portrayals of Christ crucified, in popular devotions, etc.